Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 87

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

User:Mukesh Mishra Karate

This account has been blocked for en:WP:SOCK on English Wikipedia per en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karateaniket. So far more than ten accounts have been blocked as part of the same SPI. Some concerns have also been raised that rather then just being a case of one person creating all of the accounts, it might be a couple of people trying to create articles for a fee in violation of en:WP:UPE. This user has also uploaded a number of files to Commons and most of them except one are currently being discussed at DR. File:Deepikakarate.jpg, however, doesn't seem to have been assessed yet. The file is claimed as own work, which it might be. The file's EXIF data suggests that it comes from Facebook, but I can't seem to find the account. Can this file be kept as licensed or is OTRS verification needed? Should this account be blocked based on the English Wikipedia SPI? I thought about tagging the file with {{Npd}} or even starting a DR about it, but I was worried that either of those things might possibly lead to more SOCK accounts being created in an attempt to keep use this file or somehow use it on English Wikipedia; so, I didn't. If this it not really a Commons concern, then that's fine. I just wasn't sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

ArtyomSokolov

For ignoring COM:OW on File:EastMed project map.png and comments like "Stupid Greek propagandists", "Fuck off". --MGA73 (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Also the bottom of the page/map now uploaded with a new name File:EastMed pipeline project map.png says "Sources: S&P Goloba; Petrolium Economist; Turkish foreign affairs ministry © FT" but uploader claims own work. --MGA73 (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Jeunesse44 - persistent copyright violations

Jeunesse44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) The user persistently uploads files with missing or false information regarding its source and copyright status, despite several notices from other users. The images are then added to articles fr.Wikipedia. Several were deleted a few months ago after which he re-uploaded them. Patrick Rogel has raised these issues on his talk page. Fralambert also has raised the same issues at his fr.Wikipedia talk page concerning copyright infringement, to no avail.

I think a "gentle reminder" by an admin is warranted at this point. The editor has multiple competency issues.

Thank you for adressing.

--Webfil (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Final warning given Gbawden (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Renokkusu and duplicate images

User:Renokkusu is a new user who has uploaded a series of duplicates of files that already exist on Commons under different names. Some of these, bizarrely, have been edited to a lower quality than the original image, e.g. compare the original File:AndrewFisher.jpg to Renokkusu's File:Andoryūfisshā.jpg. There are also problems with attribution - for example, Renokkusu uploaded File:Abbott.jpg giving the author as just "Troy" and the source as Commons. This overwrites the metadata on the original File:Tony Abbott - 2010.jpg, does not fully credit the original author or the original source. A quick browse through the user's upload history shows almost all their uploads have similar issues. Any reason these files should be kept? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Masahiro007 - Copyright violations and potential sockpuppets

Masahiro007 has repeatedly infringed copyright, even after being given a warning. I have marked several of their files for speedy deletion. Below is the full list.

Another user and I have noticed that Masahiro007 may or may not have sockpuppets. See this. Below is a full list of suspected sockpuppets.

There may be more sockpuppets that have not been discovered yet. I suspect that the above accounts are sockpuppets because they have similar uploading patterns. They upload photos of Japanese businesspeople, racecars, aircrafts and/or company logos, all licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 as their own work. FunnyMath (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Masahiro007 and Ka04iso10 both have worked on drafts for the English Wikipedia article on Swift-Xi. See [1] and [2]. Probably worth looking into. FunnyMath (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@FunnyMath: I suggest you start a case at COM:RFCU.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me that. I did not know about the RFCU. I have started a case. See [3]. FunnyMath (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@FunnyMath: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I have found another potential sockpuppet, Swift Enginnering. FunnyMath (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Another one, Yuji Yoshida. FunnyMath (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Found a couple more copyvios:

The two photos above are candid amateur photos, and even those are not the uploaders' own works. I would not trust any of the photos that those two users uploaded. Would mass deleting their photos be possible? FunnyMath (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Birds o f Aristophanes Robinson Planche. 1846.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Birds o f Aristophanes Robinson Planche. 1846.jpg. --NoFrost (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Ruwaym

Hello, Ruwaym opened today (27 July 2020) discussion on Arabic Wikipedia about Commons sysops, and I'll summarize what he wrote:

  • Talking a lot about this undeletion request, with huge assume of bad faith against commons sysop, with lying that he still wait commons OTRS team to reply on (Ticket#2020061310007027), despite that this ticket already closed on 6 July 2020. And that commons likes to delete files. (Talking about 1 + 2)
  • (Main point) He put question asking to choose a user so he can nominate (him/her/..) to be sysop on commons (COM:CAN), then arwiki sysop closed the section "that this Commons discussion not arwiki one", so Ruwaym replied again that section he opened is to nominate arwiki sysop on Commons, and after that he pinged user asking him "Would you like to be an administrator in the Commons or not?"

I know it's maybe that what happened not related directly to Commons, but as Ruwaym not a newbie, I see better to pass what happened to user problems section on Commons. Best --Alaa :)..! 14:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Alaa: It seems like the average arwiki user is less concerned about complying with copyright laws than the average Commons user.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes @Jeff G.: , and we trying to raise awareness as much as we can, and during this we're facing a lot of lack of understanding, I see it's related directly to copyright chaos in Arab countries --Alaa :)..! 11:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Alaa: Can that "copyright chaos in Arab countries" be documented under COM:CRT?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: ummm myabe, I will see what can I do. Thanks --Alaa :)..! 10:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@Alaa: Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not admin but I've replied to that ticket. The permission template was refilled and sent by the uploader. I've explained that, as there is no contract, we need permission from the photographer, professional or not and we're waiting for the photographer's permission since our last communication on 07062020. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
BTW, if the subject is the photographer, she must email us directly. Please note that it's possible that we request her the originals, unmodified files for verification of the EXIF. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Ganímedes, and yes I said all of what you mentioned on Arabic Wikipedia discussion --Alaa :)..! 11:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment The section on arwiki closed and archived now under "here arwiki not Commons" --Alaa :)..! 11:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Alaa: We have reached the photographer via Ticket:2020071010009547.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Good, so I think no need to complete on this discussion, and we can close it. As this discussion documented Ruwaym behavior. Best --Alaa :)..! 10:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@Alaa: Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Flag of the Arab Federation

User Ashoola repeatedly keep uploading new version of the File:Flag of the Arab Federation.svg. Apparently he/she is right that the flag used was indeed the flag of the Arab Revolt (also the first flag of Kingdom of Hejaz). However, the File:Flag of Hejaz 1917.svg already exist in Wikimedia and he/she can simply replaces the inaccurate flag in the Wikipedia page with the flag of the Arab Revolt. Due to his actions, now there are two similar files with different names exists. I believe any change to the file of Flag of the Arab Federation should be discussed first whether the file should be deleted (for its similarity with the already-existing file) or researching about whether the two flags had different flag ratio and color scheme based on historical evidence.

Regardless of the situation, user Ashoola kept uploading without any conclusion of the discussion started by his/her own, resulting to an edit war between me and him/her. The said user also have been messaged that he/she should not change the file by his own without any discussion with other users. Since I do not know what I should do further or whether my act on reverting his/her uploads is correct or not, I forward this matter to the admins to resolve the situation between us.

--Yong-in (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

 Comment so, we are talking here about:

I like to ping @باسم, Michel Bakni, and عمرو بن كلثوم: because this issue affecting directly علم الاتحاد العربي article on Arabic Wikipedia (see page history) --Alaa :)..! 10:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of what is the right flag, changes of this type should be discussed and reliable references are needed before any change.--Michel Bakni (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Yong-in, thank you, and after I protected the file, do you mind if we complete the discussion on RfD page? I will follow this topic until its end, and after finish I'll send warning to the user about his way of acting. Thanks --Alaa :)..! 11:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

 Comment File protected and discussion moved to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Arab Federation.svg. Thanks all --Alaa :)..! 10:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Спасимир

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Renokkusu

Despite being warned by Túrelio on 31 July (cf. Special:Diff/436238608) after a first complaint (now in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 87#User:Renokkusu and duplicate images) the user does the same thing again and again. — Speravir – 01:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Because of the number of overwrites they are making, and that they have repeatedly refused to communicate with other users, I have blocked them until they start to communicate. Many of their overwrites appear to be using neural network upscalers like [letsenhance.io letsenhance.io]; we don't have a formal policy prohibiting use of them for upscales, but generally they should be avoided. Because of that, feel free to revert their questionable overwrites. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Rodrigo.Argenton

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

I clearly don't understand why Rodrigo.Argenton is not leaving redirects while renaming a file. Because of it I had to replace file names in DR manually. Seems like misuse of their FM rights and non compliant of FM policy. Also their comments here and here were surprising. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 04:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I am not leaving the redirect, because the name is not any good, do not have any reasons for the redirect.
When have some reason to leave, I leave it: [4]
The rules:
"Suppression of redirects is only allowed in the following cases:
  • To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
  • To perform file name swaps.
  • When the original file name contains vandalism. (Renaming criterion #5)"
All deleted files have names as "Peace after rain" "taking a breath"...
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 04:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
PS:My talk page is empty, no warning about this COM:AN/U, no previous massage asking me why I am doing this movements... nada.
This is rich, coming from someone who forgot to sign above and attacked Tiven2240 for "do not understand the rules" in this edit after being blocked four times (and reblocked once to remove TPA}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Even bad filenames should typically be kept as redirects for referential stability. We have no way to know who may have linked that URL from outside of WMF projects, and we would prefer not to break their links, especially when those may be part of attribution. - Jmabel ! talk 00:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"recently uploaded" -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Rodrigo.Argenton has briefly and correctly explained their actions in moving recently uploaded files against the official guideline, Commons:File renaming. Strictly, they are not required to do any more than this and no admin intervention is being requested.

If the guideline is incorrect or insufficient to reflect current norms, because it leaves to much to individual judgement, then perhaps someone could de-personalise this discussion and positively propose an amendment to the guideline? --Fæ (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User Kim Leung

Kim Leung (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 01:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Kim Leung has had several past uploads deleted for copyright infringement. Now at least three more recent images have been challenged as having copyright issues. One was, as I noted on User talk:Kim Leung and on the file talk page, complained of at the Teahosue on en, by an editor who claims to be the subject, and claims the image was taken without permission from her facebook page. Can someone look into this, please? DESiegel (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Make that four images!- this time a blatant screen grab from this Nicki Minaj YouTube video (2mins 47 sec in). Rather than just reporting the file as a single copyright violation, I have left details and evidence on the user's talk page so that they can be looked at 'in the round', and hopefully they can be blocked, and all their uploads removed - especially the one which was complained about at this post at the en-wiki Teahouse by the subject of the photo which started this investigation (namely File:Kelly McCormack at web series premiere.png. I have removed it from the Wikipedia article and feel the balance of evidence is that it, too, is highly likely to be a copyright violation. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
No, make that five copyright violations! File:Michaela Kurimsky at TIFF event.png has clearly been taken from a larger Getty Images photograph, copyright owned by Emma Mackintyre. See https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/eleanor-worthington-cox-devery-jacobs-jess-salguerio-and-news-photo/1030552176?adppopup=true. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done - Copyvios deleted and user issued final warning. (User has not edited in over a month, so a block at present may be construed as punitive rather than preventative.) Эlcobbola talk 17:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: Thank you. I would not advocate the user being blocked from editing any Wikipedias. But all these copyvios went undetected for over 2 years, unlawfully releasing images into the public domain, and one caused great upset to the subject of the image they stole from their Facebook page. It took me many hours to track down all their other illegal actions and uploads. Personally, I would block them from making any future uploads here, as I really don't think that would be punitive. It would be both helpful to others and prevent future copyright theft and disruption. Yet I would continue to permit them to add text content to our many Wikipedias. But I'm only an admin on en-wiki, not here, so the decision is ultimately yours. I trust you to do the right thing. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

SethRuebens

SethRuebens (talk · contribs) is using Commons as a file dump for things related to an argument he's having on enwiki over an off-wiki authorship dispute for a TV program. Pretty much everything the user has uploaded is either a copyright violation or out of project scope. Acroterion (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Please note that I am based in the UK, and believe that US copyright law is the same (or at least, very similar). The images aren't breaking any copyright laws, according to fair dealing/fair use: 'copyright doesn't apply if the reproduced work is used for the purposes of criticism, review or quotation'. All the images being used are relevant to the debate I'm having about the inclusion of an edit I'd earlier made, which is now in the dispute phase. The above editor is seemingly not in favour of allowing those edits (which is fine, that's their prerogative), but I do object to what I consider one-sided threats of being banned from the site and an attempt to discredit me and my sources, when the arguments I've made (in a civil fashion) and the references themselves are sound. Happy to discuss, as always, in a calm and rational way. Regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Please note that "fair use" is not acceptable to Commons. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Herby (talk · contribs), as I understand it, though, text submitted to Wikipedia by users is licensed CC-BY-SA-3.0, so there should be no copyright problems with screenshots of Wikipedia text, with attribution (and so long it's inside project scope?). Regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
There should typically be no reason for screenshots of Wikipedia text. Use a permalink or a diff. Straight text usually does not belong on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
User:SethRuebens has been indefinitely blocked on en.wiki. I don't know how relevant that is to Commons, and have only very rarely been here on Commons. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done User warned about scope, uploads deleted Gbawden (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Uploads by Phoenix-Five

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

Phoenix-Five has been uploading (transferring?) lots of logo files to Commons recently, and their user talk page is starting to look like one long wall of image related notifications. Many of their uploads are deleted as copyvios or for some other reason, and most of the files uploaded are being claimed as "own work". I came across this via File:Alpena Wildcats Logo.png which seems to be a clear copyvio that is claimed as "own work". Some of the files might be simple enough to be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO United States like File:Owosso High School Block O.png, but many like the one I found and File:Traverse City West Senior High School Sports Logo.png seem too complex for that and don'tseem to be "own work" at all. This could be just a good-faith misunderstanding of COM:L, etc., but all of the image notifications on the user talk page and the continued uploading of files of questionable licensing probably needs the close scrutiny and direct action of an administrator because the Phoenix-Five doesn't seem to be slowing down. It's not only logo files, but also other types of files that this use is uploading as "own work" like flags (File:Flag of Adrian, Michigan.gif and File:Flag of Traverse City, Michigan.svg) and photos clearly taken by others (File:Perry Hannah Photograph.jpg). Not every file upload seems to be a problem, but there are more than enough (at least in my opinion) to indicate there seems to be a serious misunderstanding of the types of images that Commons can accept being made by this user. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Final warning given by Jeff G. on 5 Aug. Let us know if the problem persists Gbawden (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

User:WalterII

WalterII (talk · contribs) reverts "no permission" tag from his Youtube uploads which are not CC licensed. --07:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  • @WalterII: Just because some videos on YouTube are freely licensed does not mean that all videos are. The vast majority of videos are not. If there is not a free license on the particular video under the description, then it is normally not free. It is very important that you understand the difference here. GMGtalk 11:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: He just reverted tags again. Can you please block him and revert those edits, cause i don't want to start edit war. --Smooth O (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@Smooth O: I have reverted the changes and left a final warning on their talk page. The only reason I didn't block them was because it does not appear that they were notified on their talk page about this thread, per the instructions at the top of the page. I did ping them yesterday, but pings sometimes fail, or get lost in a multitude of unrelated pings. If they revert the tags again without addressing the issue then it is not clear there is a lot of options other than a short block.
But for future reference, please notify users properly on their talk page when opening discussions like this. This helps to ensure that they are given an opportunity to discuss the issue, or if they do not, it demonstrates that they are unwilling to do so. GMGtalk 11:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Is anyone required to have at least one checkbox for "Mention" on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I'm sorry. I'm not sure I understand the question. GMGtalk 17:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I thought we were all supposed to pay attention to mentions.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I mean, yeah, we should. But I'm not going to pretend that I don't lose the occasional ping. It's not all that uncommon that I log in and your friendly neighborhood LTA has decided to ping me 30 times on the Danish Wikibooks or something. It's not entirely something we can hold against a user with <200 edits when we mess it up sometimes ourselves. That's why we require talk page notifications. GMGtalk 17:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Miss Paris Slue Backup 2 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Self-confessed sock of User:Angela Criss. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

User:גיא נתיב

Repeatedly uploading copyright violations since April 2019, claiming own work. 153.172.208.18 06:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Final warning given and all uploads deleted Gbawden (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Today, גיא נתיב (talk · contribs) uploaded another copyright violation. Could they be blocked? Thanks, 153.224.173.137 10:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks for the heads up Gbawden (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Tinqo nr

Please see Commons:Help desk#Tinqo. I am inclined to block him permanently (since he is literally asking for it) and delete his photos (since they look to me like copyvios). Thought I'd check here first and give 24 hours for anyone to disagree; feel free to take over the situation if you are an admin who disagrees. - Jmabel ! talk 15:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi there, I'm Tinqo nr . Please Mr/Mrs Jmabel is inclined towards block me permanently (meaning I will never have a account here or be able to make edits) and I want that too.... SO PLEASE BLOCK ME BECAUSE I DON'T WANT AN ACCOUNT HERE ANYMORE and in anyway Mr/Mrs Jmabel is a good administrator.... Allow he/her to do what he/she wants to do.... THANK YOU . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinqo nr (talk • contribs) 00:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked Tingo indefinitely per his own request. Generally user's own uploads are not deleted per own request, but this case is different – request is done less than week after upload. I delete 2 first uploads. His other uploads are made after requesting the block and deletion, so the request does not apply for them. Taivo (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Taivo: I'm going to take the liberty of deleting those as well. The user refused to answer whether they were their own work, and has instead responded by asking questions about my nationality and gender. This does not suggest to me someone who understands what they are doing. - Jmabel ! talk 23:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Wait, now I see that User:Achim User:Achim55 has unblocked this account. Achim, what is going on here? - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Tingqo's posts to my user talk page are beginning to amount to harassment, and I would really like to see this brought to an end, but I am hesitant to overrule another admin. Again User:Achim User:Achim55 , do you have some coherent objection to blocking this person, and why did you undo Taivo's block of the account? & since Achim seems not to be around to respond: Taivo, did Achim consult you at all about undoing the block? - Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Achim55, who edited this project less than an hour ago.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
If a user requests to be blocked and later changes their mind I don't see a reason to not unblock them as requested on their tp. If you think they should stay blocked by a certain different reason feel free to do so. --Achim (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@Achim55: For blocking for any other purpose I'm an involved party, but I feel that this person is messing with us. Four "bad" uploads and no good ones, continual reedits of own comments on help desk that make nonsense of posts after, an edit of my comment there turning correct English into incorrect, asking to be blocked and then almost immediately asking to be unblocked, responding to my question about the provenance of what were almost certainly copyvios by coming to my user talk page and asking about my gender... I was hoping to keep this simple and noncontentious given that he literally asked to be blocked. You've now unblocked. I think you now "own" dealing with this. Please keep an eye on this user. - Jmabel ! talk 16:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@Jmabel: To be fair, they did express confusion about how to address you on the help desk, but could not figure out how to divine your expressed preference. OTOH, they wanted just their IP address blocked on their user talk page, yet did not reveal that address. I'm leaning towards an incompetence issue, or at least feigning incompetence.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

User:AlterĒvolvere

AlterĒvolvere (talk · contribs) has repeatedly uploaded images that do not make clear who the photographer is, or where the image was obtained. They uploaded a bunch of images in March, most of which I nominated for deletion. They never responded to any of the nominations. I didn't understand how to do mass-nominations at the time, but explained the general problem at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cäsar Jacobson's Portrait.jpg. Now, this month, they've come back, uploaded more images with obvious problems, and still hasn't responded on their talk page, or the nominations page, or updated any image file description page. They made this edit to a Deletion Request, which doesn't make any sense to me (they link to some Getty images). All the Deletion Requests are still outstanding, and the problem is growing. --Rob (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

They have been warned and subsequently stopped uploads. I have closed some of the DR's Gbawden (talk) 07:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Rehanarose

User:Rehanarose uploads fotos, adds unhelpful categories to his uploads, waits until the uploads are deleted, than uploads some more fotos, adds more categories. --C.Suthorn (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done @C.Suthorn: Please engage with the user on their talk page first. And if you bring a discussion here please inform them Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The user in question has in the meantime been blocked as a vandalism only account and as for as I can see the blocking admin has not informed them before blocking. I made previously deletion requests for uploads by the user, who are documented on them talk page, them did not interact (if you do not take into account that them made DR on them own uploads that already had a DR. This vandal could have been blocked long ago, and that would have saved effort and time. The way this user worked was easy enougth to identify (even by a bot) as them added masses of unuseful categories to them uploads. --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:1970gemini

File:Friedrich Heinrich Bertling.jpg: User tinkers with description of an image I have scanned from a printed original and uploaded: replaces image source with a different one, adds alleged photographer without giving source, starts edit war. --Jossi (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I see one revert apiece, and no attempt by you to communicate on their user talk page nor the file talk page. Please make an attempt to resolve minor disputes yourself before demanding administrator attention. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
imho Jossi2 has a problem. The picture was taken from the same source by me years ago. As I found out in 2017 who made it, I changed it there. J doesn't seem to accept it because he put the same picture in again. J seems to think that all has to be done in his opinion. Means his Version has to be one of an unknown. Btw I just read his changes in relation with James Bertling. It could be in my opinion usefull to take a look into the Adresskoos of Lübeck and read the Artikel which had been in the Jtiltes Reference instead of only copy and paste 150 Years of Bertling. By the way - here is a sugestion while seeing his use from namea: Please change Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg into Karl-Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Buhl-Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg. Is the named Source correct? I can't see in left Corner the sign of Gebrüder Borchers. You'll find a slightly changed version on the top of Category:Lübeckische Anzeigen.--1970gemini 21:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Fan de Politique

Fan de Politique (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) This user uploaded many copyrighted images taken from websites without any permission. He needs a warning and a block if he continues. --Hangman'sDeath (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Jangchulmin

Jangchulmin (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) This user needs a block. He uploaded many copyrighted images that got deleted. Then he uploaded some more copyrighted images that are nominated for deletion now since they are again taken from a website --Hangman'sDeath (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Warned by Jeff. G. @Hangman'sDeath: per COM:BLOCK blocking is a last resort - users have to be warned - something you are welcome to do yourself Gbawden (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Resolved

unacceptable user name. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done by Jdx. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Obsuser

Obsuser (talk · contribs) reverts and removes copyvio tags for clearly copyrighted photo. In order to avoid edit war can someone warn him. --Smooth O (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Smooth O: I warned them, but see also en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obsuser.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 Not done. No edits for more than 2 days, so situation is not urgent. His/her rename requests are handled and generally declined. If Obsuser will continue disruptive edits, then (s)he should be blocked. Taivo (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Repeated uploads of promotional images by User:Pkj19851

Repeatedly uploading photos about non-notable party Bharatiya Sablok Party. Promotional photos+copyvios+selfies. Clearly not here to build wikipedia OPEN SOURCE MEDIA REPOSITORY!!! All of their edits and uploads are for promotion. Already blocked indef on enwiki for the same. thanks QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 13:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  •  Comment Most of us here are not to build Wikipedia. Can we please stop spreading the statements about Commons being for Wikipedia only, it creates very bad environment for contributors like myself. I cannot find information about the party you have stated, if my memory is correct there is a similarly (but differently) named right wing party in India, but nothing with that name exactly. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 15:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
* I have changed my words to suit your(!) requirements. Though the problem here is not what commons is but, the mentioned user is using it as webhost platform to advertise it's non-notable party and it's people.
* You won't find any information about the party as it's non-existent and that's how those files are out of COM:SCOPE here. Hope that answers your concerns. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 05:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • If such a party does not exist, I support deleting them (although definitely not through speedy). I would be more lenient if the user was an active contributor and would want a few files showing their personal pet project to the world, but in this case such files are the only contribution. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Copyvios are deleted, one remaining is nominated for deletion. I warned the user. At moment that's enough. Taivo (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User:TintuArunav

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

Uploaded a ton of blatantly non-free files. Already blocked on enwiki as a sockpuppet of a promotional user account. Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. "Ton" is too much to be said. Some ten copyvios. The user was warned and stopped uploading copyvios. Copyvios are deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

RogerRabbit888 - dubious claims of own work

RogerRabbit888 (talk · contribs) has been an infrequent contributor for a few years and appears to almost entirely upload images with claims of own work. Several are clear copyright violations, such as File:Prince Charles at Polo.jpg being a crop from a Getty Image and File:Stuart House, Mill Lane.jpg being in existence on an internet archive record 2 years before the user's claim of own creation. Others are obviously not their own work but the sourcing is unclear, such as with File:Hyacinthe dahirel.jpg. They have uploaded several other images that may be genuinely their own work but with a proven track of copyright violation, I am struggling to give them the benefit of the doubt. Are there any views on their remaining files? From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. The user is warned and all his uploads deleted (except one, which was not a copyvio). Taivo (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Shpernik088

Shpernik088 uploaded many images of slaughterhouses, which are not their own work. I have marked several files for speedy deletion, but I did not check every one of their uploads. Any help with identifying further copyvios is appreciated. Most appear to be taken from a Facebook group page called "glass walls israel". See [5]. FunnyMath (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned and most of their photos deleted under PRP Gbawden (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre: Why PD-ROC-Traffic Markings in Template:PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette

Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs) as a checkuser and an administrator wants to track files at Category:Presidential Office Gazette of the Republic of China with hidden category:PD-ROC-Traffic Markings that would violate Commons:Categories#Improper categorization of categories is a cause of over-categorization once thousands of gazettes are uploaded. Continuing from stalled talks [6] [7] I do not understand which bot is involved as Magog the Ogre remains uncooperative. There must be much better category to track files. Would any uninvolved administrator please intervene and review [8] that would add irrelevant category? Meanwhile, Category:PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette is redirected to Category:PD-ROC-Traffic Markings as a temporary provision.--Jusjih (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jusjih: I'm a bit surprised why you bring this to AN/U now. You asked Magog the Ogre a question and he gives you a what I think is a friendly reply.
We use categories for different types of things. For example copyright status, source and subject. Categories for copyright status should not be mixed up with the other types of categories. We need categories for copyright status for all files. That's the way we make sure that all files have a proper license. As I understand it Magog is willing to find a better name for the category if you can find one. --MGA73 (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter whether I'm checkuser or not. We use hidden categories for bots all over the site but s/he is absolute determined to remove the categories, even though I've explained it would cause problems for my bot. I'm very confused by this determination, honestly. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: I do not yet consider Magog the Ogre's reply friendly enough due to failure to disclose the name of the bot. @Magog the Ogre: Are you insisting that Template:PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette may transclude Category:PD-ROC-Traffic Markings for your undisclosed bot while both being Taiwanese official public domain? Why not fix your bot to correctly and directly transclude Category:PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette? Want to ignore all rules?--Jusjih (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Jusjih: It could be OgreBot or OgreBot 2.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
It is the first bot, which creates two galleries of new uploads. Not that I think it matters. I've explained this before to Jisjih (link). It seems to be an odd mix of language understanding issues and obstinance. He refuses to understand that we use license categories as trackers as a common practice, and these don't fall under the standard categorization rules. Anyway I'm going back on wikibreak for a while and will not be around to answer any more questions regarding this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
This is more along the lines of Village Pump discussion. It will get more attention there too. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 07:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me what Magog wants to do here is completely reasonable. It is certainly not a user conduct issue. Is there any reason not to close this discussion? - Jmabel ! talk 17:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Jusjih請寫中文吧，恕我沒能看懂你反應的問題。
as far as i can understand, there's a problem with the auto cat by {{PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette}}. Category:PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette should not redirect to Category:PD-ROC-Traffic Markings. the former is for ROC presidential gazette, which is like The London Gazette, but the latter is for road signs, so you see how absurd it is to redirect one to the other.
apparently this error was introduced two years ago special:diff/290464077? i dont understand why suddenly someone is making a fuss, because it seems to me all it needs is just correcting {{PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette}}, which is a logical solution anybody could perform.--RZuo (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC) One thing i forgot to mention, I dont know what bot they are referring to. i dont see which bot is involved.--RZuo (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@RZuo: 爭端出自[9]，因爲Magog the Ogre不指明何機器人。謝謝閣下主持公道，但仍要關注Magog the Ogre的反應。--Jusjih (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Jusjih: 什麼機器人啊？我沒看到哪裡有機器人涉及這個追蹤分類的問題啊？這個追蹤分類是由模板裡的includeonly加進每個用了這個模板的文件。--RZuo (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I control two bots, both of which are listed on my user page, and which share a similar name as me. It would take you all of 20 seconds to look them up and see the galleries they create. It's open source code. What more do you want, the password and access to the machine where I write the code? "My reaction" was only to the fact that I explained myself multiple times to Jusjih and he continues to move the goalposts, and the like. I'm not the only bot that does this either; I believe Visual File Change uses it.
It's the way we've done this on Commons for 1.5 decades. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
plz check Category:PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette and Category:PD-ROC-Road Markings. is everything resolved now?--RZuo (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Everything is resolved, only if no further edit wars. Thanks so much.--Jusjih (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

D. Pedro I do Brasil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Vandal-only account. Created a little walled garden for non-existent king of Scotland. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I deleted the userpage, the only upload is nominated for deletion. Block is not needed. Taivo (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Please see the history of File:Qamar Raza Markazi Sahab.jpg. Although warned, user/IP insist on removing DR tag. --E4024 (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. The file in question is deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Qamarkhan92. Taivo (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Iwfksk 1104

Iwfksk 1104 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

All files uploaded by this user are copyvios. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned Gbawden (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

User:ニャンコ6767

ニャンコ6767 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user has uploaded multiple files of copyvio. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Warning given Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

User:WastingDust281

WastingDust281 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

All files uploaded by this user are copyvios. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done First warning given. @Yuraily Lic: per COM:BLOCK they need to be warned first, which you can do yourself. If they persist then bring them here Gbawden (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete my uploads

Can you please please help me delete my photo uploads? I have requested many times, but the admins have removed the requests.. please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhanya Gamaarachchi (talk • contribs) 2020-08-17 08:47:26 (UTC)

Gjeon338

Uploaded File:허팝 노란색 잠바.jpg after final warning, which looks like a copyvio to me, just like their other similar uploads.--BevinKacon (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

User:A furry fox

User:A furry fox has been uploading memes into Wikimedia Commons, sometimes consisting of non-free content Anomper012 (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Removed. 1989talk 20:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

A1Cafel

Someone needs to take a close look at this editor. Their activities seem to consist of transferring a very large number of Flickr images here, and nominating other editor's images for deletion, often with a very poor understanding of the policies and laws which are applicable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Numerous comments on their talk page, but only a single response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
But it's not apparent that these are baseless nominations. Art affixed to buildings does not necessarily become architecture. For example, a gargoyle affixed to the exterior of a building may be De minimis in a picture of the entire building, but would be considered a sculpture in an image consisting of primarily the gargoyle itself. GMGtalk 12:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Have you read Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States? While buildings are OK under FOP artworks aren't and certainly not an artwork stuck on the exterior of a building Gbawden (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, I've been working in this area for 15 years and I'm quite familiar with it. This case is not artwork "affixed to the building", it is part and parcel of the design of the building. A specific Federal court case (which I will try to find) for another similar situation ruled that when the artwork is intrinsic to the building, it is considered to be a part of the building and FoP restrictions concerning stand-alone artwork does not apply to it. Also, GMG is wrong concerning gargoyles. They are a part of the building, and photographs of them are part of the architecture of the building. The same might not apply to a stand-alone statue, depending on circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Would this by chance be Leicester v. Warner Bros, which determined that elements which are separable from the utilitarian aspects of a building are subject to copyright? GMGtalk 13:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's the case, although I would not have glossed it in the way you have. An analysis is here In any event, my understanding is the "Metronome" is an intrinsic part of the building and connot be removed from it. This being the case, it it impossible to take a photograph of that face of the building without taking a picture of "Metronome". Since US copyright law allowed architecture to be copyrighted only with the proviso that they be photographable from any public space, "Metronome" does not fall under the category of visual artworks that cannot be photographed because they are copyrighted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
This specific nomination looks fine to me; I would need more research to figure out which way to !vote, but the fact that it's debatable means that a DR is appropriate, DRs don't need to be a slam-dunk case. However, they have many other issues as I've detailed below, such as nominating images which are not slam-dunk cases for speedy deletion, making poor heuristic evaluations, etc., all the while uploading copyvios of their own. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't really pretend to understand all of the broader context here. But if a DR is debatable then that's kind of the purpose of a DR. GMGtalk 17:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I notified them of this discussion for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

A1Cafel has shown up on this board many times before. In September 2019 and April 2020, they were brought here for transferring duplicates from Flickr and nominating the older uploads for deletion. I banned them from using flickr2commons as a result of the second discussion, but reversed the ban after they appealed to me on my talk page. In May 2020, The Squirrel Conspiracy proposed a ban on nominating files for deletion, but it was judged to be premature.

Unfortunately, I think the community's patience has been exhausted. While a large portion of what they nominate for deletion is correct, their error rate is far too high and their deletion nominations show up frequently at COM:UNDEL. Many of them are because the copyright holder in the EXIF does not match the username or other issues with the metadata. Some users choose to use their real name or a different pseudonym in the metadata than their Commons username, so that it is not a reason to decide that an image is a copyvio in and of itself. Instead, nuance and proper judgment is required: Is the uploader mixing a bunch of different names in the EXIF? Does the uploader have a history of copyvios? Then there is a legitimate case for deletion. But if an uploader consistently uses a particular name in the EXIF, and the files cannot be found elsewhere using Tineye, tagging them for speedy deletion is the wrong approach. They also tagged files transferred from Wikipedia without checking with a Wikipedia admin to see if the original upload had more information on the source, and mistook an insect screen for a computer monitor. Their own uploads (e.g. File:Yahoo奇摩 - Google Chrome 2020 4 8 上午 01 09 47 (49746690721).png) show that they have no reliable understanding what is and isn't a copyright violation.

At this point I see little choice but to impose a topic ban from nominating images for deletion in any form. This includes COM:DR, {{Speedydelete}}, {{Nld}}, {{Nsd}}, {{Npd}}, etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Since my last proposal I've seen a lot more of A1Cafel's nominations. It looks like he goes on streaks: he identifies an issue, then nominates all of the files that have that issue. When his understanding of the policy is correct, it's very useful (IIRC he's flushed out a lot of files for no FoP in certain countries, for example). When he misunderstands the policy, he winds up generating a lot of work for other people to clean up (like when he nominated a bunch of files because a non-OTRS agent applied the OTRS tag). If we could find a way to keep his nominations within policy, I'd be fine letting him keep nominating things. The problem is how do we get there? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    I think at the very least, a ban on speedy deletion is in order because it gives others little chance to notice the nomination before it gets deleted. Yes, the deleting admin(s) are also partly at fault, but unfortunately there are just too many files to get through in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and admin patrollers would not be able to get through the backlog if they had to research each case with the same care which is given to COM:UNDEL requests, so a lot of the burden and trust is placed on speedy deletion taggers to get it right. The nxd templates are the same, just with a one-week delay, which doesn't help unless someone wants to volunteer to check each of their taggings. If we don't want to go with a full deletion ban, maybe forcing them to use DR is an option. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • My experience with A1Cafel has been limited, but what there's been of it has led me to the conclusion that their competence in the area of deletions is distinctly lacking. I would agree with King of Hearts that a topic ban from nominating images for deletion in any form is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

And again we have an instance of this user trying to be helpful, but either not understanding the policy well enough or being sloppy in implementation: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Possibly wrong inactivity desysops. It seems the problem is that he likes to operate in administrative areas that demand a lower error rate than he is currently capable of, leaving behind a mess for others to clean up. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

For failing to provide a satisfactory justification of their actions or an explanation of how they will improve in the future, I have imposed restrictions on them, detailed at User talk:A1Cafel#Editing restrictions. Basically, they cannot nominate images for deletion outside of COM:DR, and at DR they are limited to 5 images per day. I intend to review their nominations periodically and loosen up the restrictions if they show a pattern of consistently good nominations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 Support This user needs to be rate-limited in nominating their DR. I suggest that all DRs made by A1Cafel should at least be responded by the uploader or other user. If Cafel's deletion is unopposed, it should not be taken as valid and RfCs must be made for validation. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 03:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

User:A.Savin

Hello,

I am moving this from the help desk to here. It is not perhaps well thought out by me, but it was suggest that I could copy/paste it here.

(Moved from the Help Desk)

I need to know how to behave properly. In the last week or so an editor, User:Elkost, came to a category of a country (Pakistan) I have been editing in for four years and changed major categories into ones unfamiliar to me. I wrote to him on his talk page, first to let them know I was hopeful[10], then to describe that I was have trouble with all the sudden new changes.[11] [12]. Maybe I did not express myself the best possible way, but they answered kindly.[13]

Then an Admin, A.Savin with who previously tried to block me and now follows me around to revert my edits but will not discuss these with me, posted this about me to Elkost, calling me a vandal, including most hurtfully "in my almost 15 years on Commons, never seen an other user with such combination of incompetence and toxicity (maybe except the WMF banned INeverCry)" [14]. Elkost sent him a "thanks". I then ask Elkost about the philosophy of the category changes they were making.[15] They answered that they did not know.[16] Meanwhile, A.Savin again posted that my vandalism was continuing.[17] This made me look very bad, and I posted this (which is true).[18]. A.Savin then posted this.[19]. A.Savin has refused to discuss any of his edits reverting me from the beginning, even though I approached him very kindly. He even followed me to Alaska yesterday and reverted me there. I feel very bad and want to know how to handle this. I did post at the Village Pump asking about the philosophy of this new (to me) category system, especially the Category:Activities in Pakistan as A.Savin reverted me when I tried to include the categories hidden there as categories of Pakistan. Thank you and best wishes, Krok6kola (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Should I ping A.Savin? I don't want more trouble and pinging him has always ended badly. Krok6kola (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
My previous name was Kabbles but I changed it to make it less wimpy. Krok6kola (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not tired to repeat it again and again and again... and again:
I'm not targeting "Krok6kola". (They are really not as important to feel the need to permanently waste my time on them.)
It's just like... If someone does vandalism on categories which have been stable for years; for example blanking instead of RfD, or replacing more specific categories by a diffusion-requiring one; then... yes, I have to revert it... even if "Krok6kola" is feeling targeted because of that.
The claim that I "refused to discuss" is a lie. You may see previous requests on my Talk page, for example User:A.Savin/Archive/2020#Would_you_mind_if_I_moved_Clifton_Beach_to_Clifton,_Karachi_(in_accordance_with_the_enwiki_article)?. I answered everything to the best of my knowledge. If "Krok6kola" didn't want to discuss anymore because there were no arguments left, it's their problem; obviously this doesn't mean that it was me who refused discussion. --A.Savin 13:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Krok6kola: Please keep the interpersonal conflicts off of the help desk. I believe this is not the first time I've said that to you, but consider this time an administrative warning. If you have problems with a user's conduct and feel a need to bring it somewhere other than user talk pages, this might be the least appropriate place to bring it. Usually things like that belong at COM:AN/U; if they really raise issues of broad interest, then [[COM:VP]. [[COM:VP] would certainly be where to bring this if it is mainly a content dispute, but then you should be trying to focus on content, not conduct. People looking for tangible help in using Commons should not have to wade through issues about interpersonal conflicts. - Jmabel ! talk 15:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: Administrative warning? I don't see what you're saying being a valid reason to block someone. 1989talk 18:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

obviously, written on help page, not relevant here on AN/U-Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)I would appreciate if all parties would stop commenting on this section; if this is a dispute worth having, please feel free to copy-paste some or all of the above to COM:AN/U and continue there. You are welcome to post a link here to where this discussion continues, or (if you cut-and-paste it all) to replace this section with such a link. - Jmabel ! talk 15:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@1989: Seriously? You don't think repeatedly disrupting the Help Desk with arguments about people's conduct could possibly require administrative sanction, but you blocked an admin for a week for what amounts to a bad edit summary? (I agree it was a bad edit summary, by the way.) - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you forget the conversations you and I had with AFBorchert User talk:AFBorchert/Archives/2020 in which he said to me not to post on your page anymore since it upset you so much since you could not block me that you said "I'm so sick, tired, and I only just want to die". And you forget that I did prove the need and created Category:Clifton, Karachi, showed that the address of your building photo was in Clifton Beach and moved the disputed images there (except for your photo as you do maintain strict control of them). I recreated the mosque category you deleted and moved the images back.
AFBorchert also says you accepted the fact you put "unjustified" block warnings on my talk page, and that calling me "stupid" did not help your case. And I do feel you are targeting me because you are almost the only editor that has reverted me so when that "red" thing occurs at the top signaling a revert, it is almost always you. Yesterday you reverted an edit in Alaska, a place you never edit. Recently you reverted me 10 times on one day, while only two other editors have reverted me: one who explained my error in the location of a road, and the other who explained to me how to added a person as an alumni of a college (so I learned something).
I ask that A.Savin stop reverting me without explanation, that he stop following me to places he normally does not edit to revert me. And I ask that he not follow me to the talk pages of others, including that of Elkost of whom I had asked some honest questions about the new category system he created in Pakistan in the last week. There A.Savin repeatedly add negative comments about me on that talk page.
Specifically I ask that he explain to me and to Elkost his comment to Elkost about me: "in my almost 15 years on Commons, never seen an other user with such combination of incompetence and toxicity (maybe except the WMF banned INeverCry)"
If in the opinion of others, these comments are not true, I ask that he remove those posts on the talk page of Elkost and explain to Elkost why.
I apologize in advance if any of this is inappropriate. On Wikipedia I was not accustomed to making these kind of complaints. Thank you very much. Krok6kola (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

p.s. Yesterday I asked about this new category system at the Village Pump, but neither Elkost nor A.Savin have answered the pings Jmabel suggested I make. Krok6kola (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm just pinging some users who are interested in maintaining categories to kindly ask their opinion: @Elkost, Stolbovsky, W.carter, Joshbaumgartner, Rodhullandemu, and Leit: . And yeah, I'm really tired of all that conflict-seeking rubbish. Do what you want! --A.Savin 17:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping but I am recusing from politics here. Just going for 1000 VIs and 500 QIs before I find something more worthwhile to do. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Could you explain these rollbacks against Krok6kola? My question is to verify you're not misusing rollback. 1989talk 18:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    I appreciate your talents in resolving disputes. But seriously, as there are quite many reverts, it's not possible to elaborate each, so I do the latest one: it violates COM:OVERCAT. Many other cases are similar. If you're interested, take a closer look at them; fortunately, Commons is a transparent project. --A.Savin 19:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    If you don't give me an explanation, I have no other choice but to block you. 1989talk 19:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    For what reason amongst those stated in COM:BP, please? And additionally, you are clearly biased. --A.Savin 19:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    Misusng rollback for purposes other than vandalism. As you're an admin, I cannot revoke rollback from you, so this is the alternative route I'm willing to take with you if you fail to take any accountability for your actions. 1989talk 19:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    1989, your behavior here, unsurprisingly, is unbecoming of an admin. Blocking an admin who does not answer what you want to here, is most like a desysop for you, especially given your previous misbehavior as an admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    Last tine I checked, you were not a dictator on this project, and ""alternative routes" not compatible with the conflict resolution policies is not someting we are going to tolerate here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    That is entirely your opinion. There's no special privilege here. This user in question will be treated just like everyone else, admin or no admin. 1989talk 19:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    This is not my opinion, this is a policy. Commons:Blocking policy does not list a block reason what you claim to be a blokable offence. My opinion is indeed you should have desysopped in May when you escaped the desysop pretending that you "retired".--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    There are things I have been blocked for that isn't mentioned there, so I consider your point invalid. To correct you, I think you meant March. I don't recall abusing anything during that time, I was the victim of it. That's most certainly not a reason for a desysop. 1989talk 19:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (ec) @1989. First, I'm not misusing it, as I already stated, that most of the edits are violating COM:OVERCAT -- an official policy, and so, permanent violation of this policy despite of warnings and attempts to discuss, is vandalism. Second, again, you are clearly biased, so please leave me alone with your aggressive behaviour and let a neutral admin decide, if ever there is something to decide. If any of my edits is wrong, that should be reverted and yes, in this case I probably should be blocked for vandalism; but please show me which are wrong and where, in your point of view, I did vandalism and why. If you can't, then leave me alone. This is a really serious issues with your aggressive threatments... --A.Savin
    First of all: I don't even know you, so please stop this bias accusation. Second of all: I never said anything about you performing vandalism. What I said for you to do is explain your reverts, and your reasoning is unrelated to vandalism, what the rollback tool is meant for. That is not an acceptable answer. 1989talk 19:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    First of all: LOL. Second of all: I'm sincerely sorry that my arguments do not satisfy you. In general, if I edit categories and anything else, I do it to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing else applies to reverts of Kalbbes' edits. Perhaps COM:Categoris is useful stuff for you to read about how to handle categories; otherwise, I cannot help. --A.Savin 20:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I am mentioned from the very beginning in this discussion. To better understand the situation you could read my discussions with Krok6kola on my talk page: in sections Pakistan and Categories. Here are some comments on Krok6kola's statements.

  • Krok6kola starts above: “Elkost came to a category of a country (Pakistan)... and changed major categories”. This is an unproven statement, it is not even mentioned which categories are in question. The only named specific categories, discussed by us, are “Activities in Pakistan” and its subcategories – I have not touched neither of them. No other named category of Pakistan was discussed (I am afraid that he/she considers me inventor of “Category:Activities in Pakistan” while even outsiders can easily find who is its author.)
  • A bit further Krok6kola states: “I then ask Elkost about the philosophy of the category changes they were making. They answered that they did not know.” If this “they” means “Elkost”, then these 2 statements are not true. The sentence (without any question) on my talk page, including “philosophy”, is: “I would like to know more about the philosophy behind this specific system used on the Commons.” During our both discussions I was not asked for any my specific “change” (edit). My reply “I can't answer your questions. Ask the authors of these edits.” was the answer to his/her last questions, not to the above presented (but unasked) question “about the philosophy of the category changes”.
  • At the end Krok6kola says above: “...Elkost of whom I had asked some honest questions about the new category system he created in Pakistan in the last week”. In fact, there is not a new category system in Pakistan created by me (only new categories like similar categories for Pakistan and other countries), there is not such question in our discussions. One cannot answer unasked questions, me too. --Elkost (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

A.Savin blocked

I’ve noticed that 1989 has blocked A.Savin for a week. I don’t think the block is appropriate, 1989 is an involved Administrator (based on the June 2020 AN/U) and this is a controversial block, which requires discussion before being implemented. While I think it was inappropriate for A.Savin to use rollback for OVERCAT issues, and should have used something other than the rollback tool (so a further summary can be added), the COM:ROLLBACK page doesn’t stipulate that it is a vandalism only tool. Bidgee (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly a poor block--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Blocking admin is involved, the reason for the block isn't supported by the blocking policy, block is punitive in nature. A. Savin should be unblocked asap. Natuur12 (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I like both editors so will remain neutral here - My general opinion is that rollback was misused here and if I'm being absolutely honest as I can be .... A.S's reasoning for using is wholly insufficient, If you're an admin you're expected to revert changes and explain why (unless it's blatant vandalism),
The block should've been for 24 hours-48 hours tho - IMHO a week doesn't really fit the crime here,
Administrators shouldn't be exempt from their duties on the basis of them commenting on an ANU thread months ago. –Davey2010Talk 20:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)A.Savin and 1989 have recent history, not just over a month ago.
Though even if there were no history between the two, the block is wrong. Rollback isn’t exclusively a vandalism tool, as stated on COM:ROLLBACK “ The use of rollback should normally be limited to combating vandalism, but the tool can also be used to rollback your own mistaken edits or the clearly mistaken edits of another user.” Bidgee (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bidgee, Okay fair enough, I was obviously aware of all this, I'm just judging it on how I'm seeing it but ofcourse there may be more than meets the eye, Obviously I'm aware of rollbacking your own edits .... but "or the clearly mistaken edits of another user." ... really ? ... No that should not be what Rollback is used for and IMHO ought to be removed.
ROLLBACK basically says it can be used on good faith mistaken edits.... so technically A.Savin hasn't abused rollback .... Meh –Davey2010Talk 11:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I have unblocked A.Savin. Given the history of these two users, I do not consider it appropriate for either of them to unilaterally block the other. On the merits of the block, a perceived failure to adequately explain one's rollback actions is not valid grounds to block. If it's something like "I will continue to use rollback in a controversial manner", then there is a case for blocking, but I just don't see that here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks King. "Blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one". 1989 have a bad opinion on A. Savin long time ago User:A.Savin/Archive/2015/1#Explanation (2015). 1989 in definitely involved admin. -- Geagea (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Though the block is now lifted, I hope that’s not it for 1989. Sealle (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Despite our few interactions, I have nothing against A.Savin. Like I said, I don't even know them, which for some reason they took as a joke. Nothing about this is funny. That false narrative is very toxicating. 1989talk 21:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow. I realise that by some people's standards my own adminship fell short of their unrealistic expectations, because they failed to fully understand the long-standing issues from which I still suffer, but this is just frightening. Are standards really dropping that much, and so quickly? "When you're in a hole..." Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I'll repeat what I wrote at User talk:A.Savin: I am totally opposed to any administrator unilaterally blocking another, except possibly in an emergency for an hour or so if someone really seems to be going crazy, just to give time for discussion. Admins are necessarily considered trusted members of the community, and blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Any block of an admin (or really any clearly strong contributor) should be discussed beforehand at COM:AN/U. (No opinion either way on A.Savin's conduct here, just on 1989's.) - Jmabel ! talk 23:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems difficult to view this interaction as not being a bit authoritarian in approach. GMGtalk 23:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose any strong sanctions against A.Savin. A warning to explain their actions better will be sufficient.  Support lifting their block if it has not been lifted yet. It appears that despite them not being forthcoming in the discussion, their rollbacks were in line with accepted policy. A.Savin is probably the worst admin on Commons, but they are a good contributor and their admin actions are just a yota better than the level needed to remove sysop privileges. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment This was a punitive block and therefore not legal. --Smial (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Seeing bad behaviour from established sysops has to erode the wider community's trust in all those with sysop tools. Refraining from acting when you are involved, or are perceived as involved by many other parties, is an obvious 'bad thing'. Similarly when you wield the mop, there is absolutely no excuse to use threatening or abusive language. How is this fixed, apart from de-sysop requests? It is unfortunate we do not have the concept of giving an administrator enforced 'gardening leave', where their access to tools is removed for a time-out without the hassle of putting them 'under a cloud'. Maybe we should, especially during this stressful time of the pandemic. --Fæ (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

User:1989

Closing this on purely procedural grounds. A discussion has been opened regarding 1989 at Commons:Administrators/Requests/1989 (desysop). A discussion is ongoing regarding A.Savin above. A discussion is ongoing regarding Krok6kola below. It seems further contributions to this thread will only help to confuse whatever consensus emerges from the other community discussions taking place. Those who wish to contribute are welcome to do so in these other threads.

Anyone is welcome to undue this close if they feel it is not appropriate. GMGtalk 12:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

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

I hereby want to complain about a presumably partisan 7-days block imposed by admin 1989 against me few hours ago, and meanwhile lifted by a third admin as inappropriate.

The original discussion that led to the situation was in the complaint against me raised by Krok6kola (formerly Kalbbes), that I revert much of their edits on categories, so that the user is taking offence and feeling deliberately harassed by me. In case you're interested to know if this accusation is justified, you may read my first statement in the thread (the one moved from Help Desk), and the subsequent discussion. If this is not sufficient, I've provided more detail in the collapse box below.

More details

The fact is, that I indeed reverted a large number of Krok6kola/Kalbbes' edits. In most cases this was over-categorization (which is not welcome according to COM:OVERCAT policy); examples: [20] ("Transport infrastructure in Pakistan" is already one of sub(sub)cats of "Pakistan"), [21] (ditto on "Culture of Pakistan"), [22] ("Aurora in the United States" = subcat of "Aurora by country" = subcat of "Aurora Borealis"); also repeated edits like these on categories where they already have been reverted, without seeking any discussion with me: [23], [24]. Besides over-categorization, there were further inappropriate edits, examples: [25] (Category "Pakistan" instead of more specific ones), [26] (Entire blanking of category, instead of opening an RfD / CfD as usually required).

There were numerous (in the end useless) attempts to discuss between me and Krok6kola, for example: Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2020/06#Please give me some advice, Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2020/06#Deleting my categories, Commons:Help desk/Archive/2020/07#Please advise me, User:A.Savin/Archive/2020#Galle Fort, User:A.Savin/Archive/2020#Would you mind if I moved Clifton Beach to Clifton, Karachi (in accordance with the enwiki article)?, User:A.Savin/Archive/2020#Rusian Embassy in Clifton, Karachi, User:A.Savin/Archive/2020#Your reversion of "Roof of Frere Hall" as a "duplicate", User:A.Savin/Archive/2020#Your revert is not supported by en:wiki article, User:A.Savin/Archive/2020#Do you have nothing to do but revert what I do within minutes? (in all that discussions, I answered nearly all questions by Kalbbes, so their claim I would "refuse discussion" is obviously wrong, if not to say slander), additionally several (probably archived or removed) threads on their talk page, and yes, the ANU thread in June, where 1989 took clear position against me.

Just in short, again, I'm not targeting Krok6kola in any way, but I'm reverting edits of them that are inappropriate, and sadly these are not just a few edits (to say the least) and not only in the last couple of weeks. Especially I take a look at edits on a) categories (because correct categorization of categories is more important than of files, especially in order to keep tools like "HotCat" or "Cat-a-lot" usable), and b) my own pictures I uploaded (because I'm watchlisting this content, which no one but me would do -- actually logical IMO). I would be happy not to have anything to do with Krok6kola anymore, and in fact it's easy -- it's just they should do it careful and in accordance with policies and Common sense, simple as is.

I'm sorry I can present only a sample of reverts (just recent ones) and discussion attempts. If I had to present all, I would need days or even weeks to write it down; and no one would read it anyway (TLDR).

1989 claimed "Misuse of rollback" as the reason. In their opinion, the block is the only way in this case, because I cannot have my rollbacker flag revoked (except when being desysopped). I already tried to explain 1989 in the discussion that the misuse accusations are unjust, but they have ignored all arguments, threatened me, and in the end blocked me.

To understand why the "Rollback abuse" accusations are not true, you may see my previous discussion attempts, linked in the above collapse box. In fact, there were attempts to explain COM:OVERCAT to Krok6kola. So the question is: how long should one try to explain this guideline to someone who is apparently not at all interested in being helped. In other words, should I really write in each revert's summary "Please mind COM:OVERCAT", despite the fact that Krok6kola has of course been aware of COM:OVERCAT all the time? And if the problem is that Krok6kola is upset because of the revert notifications they receive, this has nothing to do with the Rollback tool: manual reverts generate these notifications as well, and so do reverts using tools like "Restorer" (sometimes, if needed, I use this tool to revert more than one user at once, but it can also be used just like Rollback to revert one user -- it really makes no difference, and to use it, you don't have to be a sysop or a Rollbacker). So if it's about Krok6kola being upset because of notifications, they have two ways to avoid them: a) disable notifications in their Special:Preferences, or b) do only edits that are appropriate and don't require a revert.

If -- despite the above -- it's true at all that amongst all the rollbacks there were any abusive ones, there is no such reason for block in the COM:Blocking policy. I already stated this in the discussion, and kindly requested 1989 to leave me alone and let a neutral admin decide.

Why do I (and not only me) think that 1989 never should have imposed this block, even if it was justified?

In the AN/U discussion that took place back in June, 1989 was probably the most active contributor, with several hostile comments towards me and advocating of Krok6kola/Kalbbes, without any arguments on the contentual issue (categories), despite the fact that I didn't ignore questions and tried to explain them the issue in detail. They are known of further toxic comments targeted at me in the past, for example "Love you too [A.]Savin" just after I opposed their oversighter application. Probably this hostile approach is much older, for example they cannot forgive me my oppose at their RfA, and also the deletion of one of their uploads (though here I'm indeed sorry to have been a bit of rude; it's long ago, I don't know anymore why exactly).

So with all that said, I kindly request comments. It's a clearly inappropriate administrative action by 1989. Several admin colleagues already have agreed on this. What options could be there now?

  • An apology by 1989 and hiding the entry from my block log?
  • Desysop of 1989, as this is clearly not the first time that there is a problem with their administrative actions?
  • ...?

Anyone who is willing to discuss here, please remain civil and judge on my contentual work in this issue, not on my person and/or old disputes. Thanks. --A.Savin 00:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  •  Support Lifting the block against A.Savin, this should have been a warning, not a block. Perhaps also  Support mutual apology from both users to each other, but a forced apology does not really mean much anyhow.  Oppose any strong sanctions against 1989. 1989 has stayed just within the letter of the policy on Commons in this case, they have warned A.Savin that the block was coming and stated what needed to be done to avoid it, and then once there was no complience the block was instituted. This is a bad way to act, and we should probably change the policy, requiring admins to operate differently, but it makes no sense to (at the same time) penalise 1989 for these actions, while keeping the policy that reads that their actions were appropriate. This is a larger problem within this community that needs to be resolved, and not something that can be used by everybody fighting each other on ANU. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 03:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    Back in June, 1989 warned me in a similar situation, not to block Kalbbes. Despite the fact that I warned the user several times before I got close to blocking them (which I still didn't do). Double standards, no? --A.Savin 11:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    I did not see User:Krok6kola/Archive_2020#Vandalism_is_not_appreciated, your behavour in that thread was horrible, the fact that you use that fact that you did not block somebody as a moral justification tells a lot about this whole situation. You do know that accusing a person of vandalism is not an appropriate behaviour! You do know that telling a person not to contribute is not appropriate behavour! You do know that not even bothering to apologise after it has become clear how wrong you were is not appropriate for an admin! The funny thing is that you bring up double standards at 11:51 in a thread complaining about an admin temporarily blocking you because there was no way to take away your ability to behave the way you did... and then at 12:00 you write "Definitely, this overcat madness has to stop and if a temporary block of the user is the only way, it should be done in the end." This situation can be summarised as «A user makes a mistake with categories, madness insues», and this madness is not caused by that user. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 12:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    I want to draw attention to the last paragraph of my statement, but actually, I have no illusion that some people come just to stir up. Well, then... --A.Savin 13:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, I was talking only about the actions in this particular case. Your behaviour was horrible, you have used your admin powers to attempt to intimidate a person who has simply made a mistake, and who has asked you to back off. You did not do that. You should not have been banned for that, but simply should have received a warning. In that 1989 has made an error of judgement, that error should also result in them being warned to not do so again. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 14:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I  Support the desysop discussion for 1989. What we have just seen was an out-of-process block on arbitrary, not policy-based grounds, and in additionally while being involved with the blocked user. Before the block, I warned then in the topic above that the policy does not allow for a block in this situation, and they basically replied that they do not care, and that if they think there is disruption, whatever broadly interpreted, there is a good reason block. This is not the first time they demonstrate such attitude. In this thread at the end of march, which they started after they have edit-warred with a checkuser whether the discussion can be closed, they treat another administrator, who lifted a clearly erroneous out-of-process block of their opponent, with a block. Having an administrator who does not follow the blocking policy and can block anybody in any situation is dangerous, and 1989 must be desysopped. The fact that they are one of the most active admins must not be a deterrent, we desysopped active admins before.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support desysop, as I have now to agree with Ymblanter. --A.Savin 11:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems that user 1989 does not understand that he was wrong. I agree with user Jmabel. Blocking admins is not a correct way to solve problems. Unfortunately, As of this moment, desysop is inevitable. -- Geagea (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Since no apologies are given and none seem to be expected, I  Support a desysop request. Sealle (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I regretfully  Support holding a desysop procedure. Blocking another admin while you are involved is one of the most severe sins an admin can commit. This isn't the first severe incicent. There's also the very recent severe incident from March. While 1989 wasn't the only one to blame for that clusterfuck, his role was culpable and included calling a female checkuser "hun". I genuinely hoped that 1989 would have learned from the incident in March, but he hasn't. Natuur12 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Natuur12: Can you please explain what means "hun"? I'm not able to understand this word, and even less in the context where 1989 used it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
"Hun" is short for "honey" (in French, chérie); generally a term of endearment, but when said sarcastically to someone to whom you are not endeared, it is condescending, dismissive and, when said to a woman (i.e., why Natuur12 referenced "female checkuser"), can be misogynistic. Эlcobbola talk 19:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm in no way shape or form misogynistic, and didn't mean it like that when I said it. The conversation gives clarify to why I responded in the manner I did. 1989talk 19:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I haven't said you are, or even that the comment was--thus "can be". But was that remark condescending and dismissive, absolutely. Эlcobbola talk 19:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I know you didn't, just putting it out there. 1989talk 19:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I think it's a colloqial short for "honney". It's normally affectionately towards (mostly) females, but if you put a specific inflection in your voice it can be a term that signifies talking down to somebody. In this case, I would read it in the same way as "dude", "pal", etc. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 19:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the answers.  Support desysop. I did not really like the behavior of 1989 during the last "big stories" with CUs, but it was even without be aware of this "hun" story. All this is inappropriate behavior for an administrator. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
"Don't blame me, I'm only human" is a worthless excuse. Humanity does not excuse bad behavior. T CellsTalk 20:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Don't twist my words. 1989talk 20:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose any sanctions or desysop for 1989 - As per my statement above I feel A.Savin misused rollback. He was told to explain his reasoning which he sort of did but personally I felt it was not sufficient and as such supported a 24-48 block.
I personally believe 1989 did everything correctly and fairly. My only minor issue is that I disagreed with the length of the block but other than that I feel they've done everything correctly and fairly. –Davey2010Talk 23:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Sadly, but this is not his first time. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I try to avoid this kind of discussions but this time want to say a couple of things: 1. Please look at the revision history of File:Hina Rabbani Khar.png. This kind of permanent categorization mistakes may drive anybody crazy. I received my only one block in Commons (and left the place for many months) for not being able to stand to that kind of "permanent" wrong categorization by two users who are/were not newbies. (For the curious, one was from Turkey, like myself, and the other one had a user name that always reminds me we came from ashes we will become ashes. Or something like that. :) Therefore I understand the party that got mad about the constant categorization mistakes and probably did not act with enough patience. 2. OTOH I know 1989 and appreciate his adminship skills. I saw a few references to "previous similar acts" but I tend to see that claim and his response as similar to the position of the party sanctioned by him, action which caused this discussion. Perhaps 1989 used his patience just as A.Savin did with the other Commoner. In short, 1989 is a good, hard working admin and we need them. He should not have blocked his colleague for a week but maybe symbolically 24 hours or less. This discussion will be a lesson for him and I am sure he will not be brought to this panel again. No action is needed. Close and archive the case please. --E4024 (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Strong support Misuse and mishandling of other users should be taken more seriously if its made by admins rather than by users. Admins are given more trust compared to regular users and therefore should be more accountable in their acts. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 04:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Response

Since yesterday, I had given myself time to think on my actions I performed recently. When I saw a thread in regards to a colleague, I responded accordingly. However, there was a point where I was accused of being biased and was told to let another admin handle the situation. I did not listen to their plead, and because of that, I was accused of being an involved admin and have gotten myself into this situation.

I would like to humbly apologize to A.Savin for refusing to cooperate with their request to allow someone else to respond, and performing a block I had no support for in regards to the blocking policy nor the community. I acted irrationally and I shouldn't have. I'd be more than willing to hide the block from their block log, and refraining from committing any admin actions against them that may be controversial moving forward. I'd really hate for things to end this way, and would like to be in good terms to continue my work in Commons. 1989talk 19:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You apologized which I appreciate as something anyone would expect as the very minimal step; but I already tried several times to explain why the reverts (at least uttermost of them) were actually justified and what exactly is wrong with Krok6kola's activities and behaviour. By now, you ignored all contentual argumentation. Not only from this AN/U, also from June, which was unfair towards me too. This of course doesn't make me trust you, so at least, what exactly might make me believe that it would be better not to start a desysop at this point? And what Natuur12 pointed out, with the "hun" (it somewhat reminds me of your "Love you too Savin", which is an immature comment as well, but I would never state sth. like this to a knowingly female user whom I don't know closer), is not nice either, to say the least.
Regarding the block log entry, I'm still considering, if I should not better leave it unhidden, as a perfect demonstration of what an admin should not do. --A.Savin 20:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I didn't ignore anything. The reasoning you gave me is not a reason to misuse the rollback tool. It's meant for vandalism, and their edits are not vandalism. 1989talk 20:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, to persistently claim "their edits are not vandalism", in prejudice, obviously without having take a closer look at the edits in question, is surely one of indications that you are overchallenged with the sysop bit. --A.Savin 21:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I took a look, it's not vandalism, whether you like the fact or not. If it's truly vandalism to you, then block them, and see what happens to you next. 1989talk 21:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Of course you cannot call it vandalism as a whole. You'd have to judge each edit individually. In this case, any fellow user would detect a big number of clearly inappropriate edits. And Krok6kola is not a newbie. They know exactly what they are doing. "Learning from mistakes" you can forget. But I don't think you're willing to review their edits individually. You and Krok6kola both are contributors of mere quantity, not quality. And your threats are unwelcome and ridiculous. Stop it immediately. --A.Savin 21:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
COM:OVERCAT ≠ vandalism, my statement still stands. It seems you will continue to misuse rollback, which is not good on your part. You can critique my work however you like, I'm know what I'm worth. Also, I don't recall threatening you at all. Seems you took my words the wrong way. That was most certainly not my intention. 1989talk 21:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 Info This case can be closed now, as I've started Commons:Administrators/Requests/1989 (desysop). --A.Savin 09:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

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

deletion of personal images from wikimedia required, a week past after nomination, no action taken.

Account https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&user=Prompri&ilshowall=1 pls nuke or clean delete forever , all of the images I uploaded ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prompri (talk • contribs) 22:32, 20 August 2020‎ (UTC)

1 file deleted as possible derivative; 1 file is still in an DR. --Túrelio (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

User:NicoleStugarts

This user, who obviously also contributed as User:NicoleEdnsessStuggarts, has done nothing but upload images related to a series of now-deleted pages at en.wp that were entirely a hoax. Suggest all uploads be deleted and possibly the user blocked as all images are out of scope. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Nuked and both blocked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

User:TylerKutschbach removing categories

I've asked TylerKutschbach at their talk page but I have gotten no response. During the course of July, TylerKutschbach has been removing all categories from any presidential maps that others upload while uploading their own maps. See [27], [28], and here. As such, all the presidential election maps categories contain only TylerKutschbach's maps and no one else's (these are hundreds of maps who have vanished). I'm assuming those maps are wrong of something but making them uncategorized is not helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Deleting images and graphics from applicable categories is disruptive behavior. --Smial (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Unimpressed. --Smial (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done I've left final warning on their talkpage; should they continue, please report. --A.Savin 13:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

A.Savin Ignoring the fact that these edits have be manually reversed one by one, TylerKutschbach has presumably moved to just uploading on top of the old images so those are just removed that way (without updating the licensing box). It's not clear whether their versions are helpful or not. For example, see File:Florida Presidential Election Results 1904.svg. Comparing the prior version to this version, a lot of the counties look to have been removed. This may be more accurate as (for example) Broward County was created in 1915 after the 1904 election but since no one provides sources, it's not clear whether or not this is more accurate or how the data should be displayed. I'd presume using counties from then is better since I don't know how would anyone get the data based on current counties anyway. Again, the main issue is a complete refusal to communicate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Since my warning, they did only election maps uploads, but I'm not able to review thgese edits. If there is an issue, I would suggest the following. You contact them again on their talk page and explain what is wrong with the uploads and request that they may want to discuss. If they ignore it, we can act just like it was done on EN wikipedia. --A.Savin 12:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

위키파이어 copyvios

Uploading the same unfree video game screenshots again, after final warning.--BevinKacon (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days Gbawden (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Fan_de_Politique copyvios

Uploaded two more copyvios falsely claimed as own work, despite previous block for it and abusefilter warning them during the upload.--BevinKacon (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done 2nd block, this time for a month Gbawden (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Krok6kola

Does not respect COM:OVERCAT (part of Policy Commons:Categories) and makes a mess of categories as a result, see sections above about A.Savin and 1989 for details.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  •  Strongly oppose any action against Krok6kola. The user has contributed more than 420,000 edits over the past 5 years and has never caused any significant problem during that time. AshFriday (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    The problem is, that you are thinking very primitively. A user should not be judged merely on their editcount, otherwise we'd have to un-ban INC who had more than 1M edits, just as example. --A.Savin 12:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree that Kro6kola has gone against the established policy when it comes to categorisation. The funny thing is that I actually think that having overarching categories that are intersected by a machine rather than by human editors would be better. So rather than having "X at the location Y during the year Z" we have three categories X, Y, and Z and a tool that instersects them for a view identical to a regular category. The problem is that we do not have a tool that does so easily, search is not a good way to do that, and forcing users to write database queries is even worse as a solution. Therefore as it stands today, we have intersection categories, and people use them. Nobody can be forced to use such deep categorisation, I never categorise "photographs at date by location" at a level smaller than a country, but it would also be wrong of me to roll back somebody else's work if they do so. As such they need to read our policy and try to follow it closer. I, perhaps,  Support a strong warning, but  nothing that would immediately stop the user from contributing (so no block or similar sanctions). If they continue undoing the categorisation after that, we can consider a small block (3 days or so), but we are not there yet. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support OK, I have no clue why this thread is coming as late as just now, but as in Russia they say "better late than even later". Definitely, this overcat madness has to stop and if a temporary block of the user is the only way, it should be done in the end. --A.Savin 12:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Blocking is a last resort operation to save the project. I think a block warning is more appropriate here. However, the user's action here against A.Savin makes me doubt if we can AGF in this case. Ankry (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    There were warnings. How many warnings does it need? --A.Savin 18:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I am not quite sure all parties understand what is happening. @Krok6kola: , do you understand why you are featured at this page now? Do you agree that your edits were not compatible with COM:OVERCAT?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    It would be too simple if it all was solely about OVERCAT. Just tonight, I had to revert a bunch of inappropriate category edits by Krok6kola: besides classical OVERCAT, here they added "Chandeliers by country" to "Chandeliers in mosques", here they created "Ruins in Mosul" as subcat of "Tigris in Mosul". Short before, adding "Mosque chandeliers in Turkey" to "Electric chandeliers in Turkey" and "Chandeliers in mosques" to "Chandeliers in Turkey" (both reverted by BSRF). It is also remarkable that they showcase their editcount nearly at every occasion. Possibly a high editcount is needed here at really any price? And given all the history I don't believe they understand anything on COM:Categories; it's definitely a classical example of Dunning–Kruger effect here. --A.Savin 13:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    Based on the responses, I would propose a topic ban on Krok6kola for any categorization except for the files they have uploaded.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    Any edit restriction on Krok6kola, even a partial one, would surely help to reduce the mess at least for the time it is imposed. --A.Savin 15:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Krok6kola

  • Hello, This will be my only response here; I am not Admin and feared that reporting anyone here was not a good idea. But now here I am.
  • I apologize for using the Help Desk too much. I was confused when new (to me) editor suddenly reorganized the category system of Pakistan in a week or so. I asked for some explanations of the new category system including at the Village Pump where I pinged people as I was told but no one responded.
  • I deny that the few edits I made in question here destroyed the category system or endangered the project. If this is true, please show me the evidence. I also ask A.Savin for evidence that I have such a combination of incompetence and toxicity that I am comparable to the globally locked User:INeverCry.
  • Please do not punish anyone else on my account; just punish me if I deserve it. Sorry to bother you with this. Best, Krok6kola (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
If this really shall be your only response, this is rather poor level of self-defence. You're not an innocent victim of whoever, by no means. You insulted Colin, and never apologized. You blanked categories out of process. You harassed me on my talkpage for a void reason. You definitely damage Commons with your aggressive, disrespectful behaviour. And no, blocks are not punishments -- they are to stop and prevent damage to Commons. And yes, even COM:OVERCAT is official policy on Commons -- I'm sorry that you don't like it. --A.Savin 22:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Response to A.Savin

I did use bad judgment in my post to Colin, and would have apologized but he deleted it immediately. And he did defend you only because you pinged him, when he did not know why some other admins wanted your Admin privileges removed.
And you did add the ID to your cultural heritage image after I requested it.
If posting a request on your talkpage is harassment, that is a strange attitude for an Admin.
You asked for help (linked above) saying "I'm so sick, tired, and I only just want to die. I cannot do anything as sysop, because everybody tells now I'm involved and only "a conflict party". Help me". This was after an edit war that we both equally contributed to equally.
You called me an "idiot". You are supposed to be the adult in the room, being an Admin. But if you can't block me you just want to die?
At the Village Pump, another editor said "Activities in Pakistan" is a vague, useless category in his opinion. And the way the category was originally set up, an editor could only access the categories in it (Sport, Education, Politics) through "location" and "Pakistan". I was reverted when I tried to add them to the categories of Pakistan but now they are there. If you look at other countries, each one that has the category interprets the meaning differently. Brazil put "Transport" there, while India puts "Public speaking" under "Activities". What is your definition? Krok6kola (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
"would have apologized [to Colin] but he deleted it immediately" wow, just wow. I feel no one in the world can help you anymore. I'm out here. --A.Savin 23:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
A.Savin, remember that, among other errors, you deleted Category:Memon Masjid, Karachi and moved all the images to Category:Katchi Memon Masjid, Karachi, say they were obviously the same building when they are obviously not. Krok6kola (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

A concern of mine

A.Savin, I was looking at the request you made to another Admin about a month ago Please some advice where you ask for advice on how to deal with me and you say I was extremely aggressive but the diff you give is not my comment but someone else's. I am hoping that any evidence you provide against me here is not misrepresenting me. I looked at some of your evidence and it did not seem to involve me all that much. And I am not doing any of this en masse as you seem to believe.
Also, in June you ask on the Category page what to do about Systematical OVERCAT violations and the responses seem to indicate it was not a great problem and was often warranted. Since you have never contacted me on my talk page to explain your concerns, I am not clear why you are so upset with me. Since I have over 424,000 edits, your concerns amount to an extremely small percentage of my edits and seem mostly a question of differing judgment and certainly not vandalism on my part. Krok6kola (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Response to User:Ymblanter

In answer to your question:no, not exactly. I thanked BSRF at the time they made that edit as they had improved what I was trying to accomplish. A variety of mosque chandeliers from various countries were thrown into a general category, mixing them all together. BSRF agreed with me on this general issue of separating mosques chandeliers by country and improved my edit for Turkey, a problem they would not have been aware of or improved without my original categorization.

My understanding is that the Commons is a collaborative project and that this is the way it is supposed to work. Editors work together to improve the category system and this cannot occur without categories being improved. That BSBF noticed my edit and improved it is a good thing.

Also, it would be greatly appreciated if when A.Savin reverts, he would improve it as BSRF did, or explain to me why he reverted as other editors do so collaborative discussions can result if needed.

I am trying to understand the evolving category system as it quickly changes and I have unsuccessfully sought to find explanatory information. When the reorganization of Pakistan first occurred a couple of weeks ago, three important categories of Pakistan could only be accessed through "Activities in Pakistan". This in turn was only in "Category:Activities by country of location" and "Pakistan" I tried to add "Pakistan" to these three categories and was reverted by A.Savin. Later this was fixed by someone by adding "Society of Pakistan" to them. One Admin at the Village Pump agreed with me that "Activities in Pakistan" is a useless category, unevenly applied in those countries that use it. It would help if somewhere there were definitions for what topics go under what categories.

And again I say, the vast majority of my 424,000 edits are not problematic. I created a great many of the categories in Pakistan that are in use now including by A.Savin, so when suddenly an editor that as not edited there previously essentially imposes a new category system on Pakistan, it is disorienting. I categorize in many countries but never have seen that categorization system before. Also, categorization and the wording of categories is at times a matter of judgment. Anyone who creates thousands of categories as I do, is going to be reverted. Considering this, I am rarely reverted. Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, if you look at my record, you will see that I don't upload any files, except a few transferred from enwiki when I see a useful image for a category here. So your proposal would ban me completely from the Commons, like User:INeverCry was. Krok6kola (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Self-promotion and sock puppetry

There's a sock puppeteer on English Wikipedia who's hijacking pages and creating autobiographies. He's also active here, though less so. Two of his Commons accounts are already blocked: ROYAL (OFFICIAL) (talk · contribs) and Indian Smart Boys (talk · contribs).

Accounts:

Previously deleted images:

New images:

I'm guessing that these are re-uploads of the deleted images. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I think I've got them all. We wouldn't necessarily always block accounts that haven't yet contributed to the project, but given that this user likely qualifies for a global lock, I'm not sure I see a compelling reason not to clean everything up while it's all in one place. Anyone is free to reverse these actions if they feel they are unwarranted in this case. GMGtalk 13:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit war and strange map

Xerxes931 is constantly reverting File:South Asia (orthographic projection) without national boundaries.svg to a strange version she/he uploaded. I guess he wants to prove that Afghanistan is not in South Asia. But there should other ways to prove that, other than edit warring over a strange version of the map. Aditya (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

If I wanted to prove Afghanistan was not part of South Asia(why should I do that when it is partly considered as South Asia which is a fact which I 100% acknowledge) I would’ve removed Afghanistan completely from the map. Afghanistan being in a lighter colour was done due to the region obviously, and per multiple consensus on talk pages, being rather a transit region between CA and SA and it can be considered both, depending on the definition, it was also suggested by other users to have Afghanistan in a lighter colour (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Asia&diff=959870109&oldid=959845031), nothing I randomly came up with. If you have the opinion that afghanistan is an integral Part of South Asia the same way India or Pakistan are then fine, we can discuss that. If you think the map is not aesthetic/weirdly edited, we can talk about fixing it( I actually agree that the map is not very well done but it does its job for the first)--Xerxes931 (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You have already used the argument that "it was suggested by another editor" for whatever edit you were making (here and on the Wikipedia). I don't think that's a valid argument. If it were valid then please notice that I also am "another editor", and I am telling you that this is no reason to edit war or put up strange maps. Aditya (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@Aditya Kabir and Xerxes931: I'm not an administrator, but Commons' policy is fairly clear here. Under COM:OVERWRITE, if one user thinks a change to a file is an improvement and another user disagrees, the file should not be changed. In this case, it seems that PersianV, Aditya Kabir, and Prosfilaes all prefer the older version with Afghanistan shown in dark green, so dark green it should stay unless those users change their minds. @Xerxes931: You can always upload your version of the file under a new name, and then individual projects can use whichever one they think is appropriate. --bjh21 (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Using Wikipedia argument may not always be the right thing to do on Commons, but even as a Wikipedia argument I think one random inexperienced editor making a random comment on an edit summary will ever count as consensus there. Aditya (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio

Mostafameraji uploaded may files from internet sources mostly from pixabay.com. Many of his/her uploads have been deleted, but the user keep uploading images as own work. Many files should be reviewed from the user's uploads. --~AntanO4task (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Mardetanha reverted a delete request, but image uploaded in pixabay on 28/05/2020, but uploaded in pixabay on 23/08/2020‎. Also, Check the EXIF. --~AntanO4task (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Personal files

User:Agusfalke is a non-contributor uploading many personal photo's, just a bit too much for me to tag manually. Several photo's are used on a User page on Spanish Wikipedia in user's only edit there, creating a page full of self promotion. Could an administrator look at this? Thanks, Eissink (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC).

@Eissink: I tagged the files.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. User is warned twice and all his uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagyongandoy

Bagyongandoy (talk · contribs) just won't take no for an answer, and has uploaded File:Eli Luiz.jpg again without any evidence of ownership or permission, even after his previous four uploads of the image have been deleted. He went so far as to even place a note saying "5th upload in 2 months!" with a link to their talk page on the file information page. They don't seem interested in actually trying to acquire permission or even talk with any of the deleting editors, so I'm stuck having to report the issue here. Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The text "5th upload in 2 months!" with a link to his talk page was from me, not from the uploader. I gave this as information for the admins that they know that the user take an upload after an upload of the same pic and after deletion in "Category:Media missing permission as of 14 August 2020"; - Deleted ca. 24 August and new upload of the same pic with a new filename this day or 1 day later. Adelfrank (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. I warned the user, all uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Tm

Tm still uploading images that are already existed on Commons. See the notice User talk:Tm#About upload image — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.189.107 (talk • contribs)

Meant probably File:Hawker Hurricane Mk.IIa ‘Z3055 - HA-E’ (50196737266).jpg and File:Hawker Hurricane Mk.IIa ‘Z3055 - HA-E’ (50196190043).jpg. --Achim (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Suggest that the OP raises a correctly formatted list of examples with Tm to review, rather than coming to AN before actually having that discussion. This may or may not be related to bugs with tools and the Commons API that have been discussed on this noticeboard before.
Note anyone, even an anon IP, is free to add {{Duplicate}} to duplicate files they identify. --Fæ (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yejin unnie

Uploaded another Getty image after final warning, no hope.--BevinKacon (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Tomski12

Tomski12 uploaded two more copyvios recently, after being given a last warning. I recommend a short block as a preventative measure. FunnyMath (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Final warning is from 2014, most recent warning from 2017. @FunnyMath: , please remember to notify users when you tag their uploads for speedy deletion. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Done. I will do my best to notify users from now on. Thank you for the quick response. FunnyMath (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

C7pmc ‎

User:C7pmc has been removing deletion requests of files involving the user, removing deletion notices, and retaliating against me by trying to delete images I uploaded using frivolous reasons. DHN (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user. If (s)he continues, then (s)he must be blocked. Taivo (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 Info I've now blocked due to resumption of deletion notice removals.  JGHowes  talk 13:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

2019 Guatemalan

2019 Guatemalan uploaded many professional photographs, some of which have been found elsewhere on the Internet. I recommend a mass deletion and a warning. FunnyMath (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@FunnyMath: I sent a warning.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Please close these deletion requests for files uploaded by the user: 1, 2, 3

I did not file speedy deletion requests because they reverted a speedy deletion request for one of their images before without bothering to convert it into a regular deletion request. See [31]. They should be warned not to revert speedy deletion requests without converting them into regular deletion requests. FunnyMath (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@FunnyMath: I sent a warning about that, too. Please read Help:Gadget-UserMessages.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for that link. I'm new to Commons and still learning how things work here. I'll take a look at it. FunnyMath (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

LTA

DJ Parisa has come back as User:AmireeParis. --E4024 (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Iamveryshy22

Iamveryshy22 uploaded more copyvios recently after being blocked three times. Their third block was removed on April 26, 2020, after promising to not upload more copyvios. FunnyMath (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef. Thanks @FunnyMath: for catching this Gbawden (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Fady Nabil Ibrahim

User:Fady Nabil Ibrahim is obsessed with a copvio image which he uploads again and again after being deleted each time. --E4024 (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Shuraahamsaha

Company spam account.--BevinKacon (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Australian spam

Company spam account uploading copyvios.--BevinKacon (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Fran micheli

Continues uploading copyvios after being given final warning on Sep 1, 2020. FunnyMath (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks and nuked Gbawden (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Jessluu0403

Uploaded a copyvio on Aug 31, 2020 [32] after being given a final warning on Aug 30. [33] FunnyMath (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days as a deterrent Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

MyPussay69

Inappropriate username. FunnyMath (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked. -Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thireach09

Continues uploading copyvios after final warning on Sep 1, 2020. FunnyMath (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Avishka996

Continues uploading copyvios after being blocked twice. Latest block was May 21, 2020. FunnyMath (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Itsmeant

Uploaded copyvios after final warning on Aug 13, 2020. FunnyMath (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

* Please explain why it violates copyright? Itsmeant (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The explanation is given in the copyvio notices on your talk page and the copyvio notices on the file pages of the images. FunnyMath (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
By the way, next time please do not revert speedy deletion requests without converting them into regular deletion requests. Thank you. FunnyMath (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Please help me understand - How could I violent copyright if this is my own work? Itsmeant (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
They are derivative works of a nonfree design. Thus for them to be free, you need to have permission from the copyright holder of the original design. This guideline, especially the section "What is a derivative work?" explains a bit more. FunnyMath (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, not sure what you mean by non free work, so if I use following combination ❤️👊✌️ of the emoji smiles will you consider that as "derivative works of a nonfree design". Do you know who is the owner of them? Your request is ridiculous to me! Do they have rights for that as well? Itsmeant (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
That emoji combination would not be sufficiently similar to the nonfree design to be nonfree. Assuming the emojis that are displayed are freely licensed, I would consider that combination to be free. For an extreme example, if I were to represent Mickey Mouse, a nonfree character, with three black circles, that would be free (and more specifically, in the public domain, as it would fall below the threshold of originality).
By the way, I apologize for not fully explaining this to you beforehand. I did not mean to seem hostile to you. You are welcome to continue uploading files as long as you keep in mind about these copyright concepts. You can go to the Village pump copyright section if you have any questions about copyright. FunnyMath (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you guys for explanation as I was not really aware of it, I made a remake, please let me know if the newer version of it can be used? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Razam_vybary_2020.jpg Itsmeant (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I think I would be OK with the new version. It looks different enough from the original. Good work! FunnyMath (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 Not done They believed in good faith that what they uploaded was their own work, and no one bothered to explain to them what a derivative work is. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up! Itsmeant (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

User:A.Savin

Hello,

User:A.Savin emptied by moving the contents, then deleted at least 22 of my categories yesterday on "Spiral staircases" on the basis that they were empty. He did not leave redirects. This is not the first time he has done this to categories I have created. His basis, as posted at the Village Pump: "staircase means the room where the stairs are built in, and the room cannot be spiral". He was told by others that this definition is wrong. But he does not react to the comments of others.

I did post on his page regarding this definition given at the Village Pump by others and asking to discuss and he replied that I was wrong. Then he deleted my post as usual with the comment "useless as always".

He tried to get me blocked just recently when I reported him here on the advice of the help desk for similar behavior, reverting me almost daily and making it clear he is following me around to categories I have created like Category:Cross-bedded sandstone in Utah.

One of the help desk people whom I asked for advice said today they were "also afraid of A.Savin".

Category:Spiral staircases in the Czech Republic#Category:Spiral staircases in Scotland#Category:Spiral staircases in Portugal#Category:Spiral staircases in Ireland#Category:Spiral staircases in India#Category:Spiral staircases in Canada#Category:Spiral staircases in Spain #Category:Spiral staircases in Turkey #Category:Spiral staircases in Syria#Category:Spiral staircases in France#Category:Spiral staircases in Finland#Category:Spiral staircases in Austria#Category:Spiral staircases in Germany#Category:Spiral staircases in Ecuador#Category:Spiral staircases in Malasyia#Category:Spiral staircases in Sinapore#Category:Spiral staircases in Canada#Category:Spiral staircases in Hungary#Category:Spiral staircases in Poland#Category:Spiral staircases in Albania#Category:Spiral staircases in Slovenia#Category:Spiral staircases in the United States

He also moved and deleted without redirects Category:Spiral staircases in the Vatican City (as well as its subcats) (categories I did not create) to Category:Spiral stairs in the Vatican City also without redirects. He also did other things related to those categories that I can't follow. He also moved Categories:Spiral staircases in England and Spiral staircases in the United Kingdom the same way, and maybe others , none of which I created. I think at the very least someone here should restore these categories as I have nothing to do with creating them so he is punishing the wrong people there.

He also reverted me 19 times yesterday on minor but irritating issues e.g. he removed "Sports in Pakistan from Category:Fishing in Pakistan (fishing in Pakistan is also a sport as well as a commercial enterprise). The redirect from Category:Spiral staircases to Category:Spiral stairs was made 12 years ago by User:Jmabel [34] who could have been helpful at the Village Pump when I brought this up but was not. It is unreasonable not to have a category for "Spiral staircase" as it is an important architectural element. I asked at the Village Pump how consensus can be obtained besides the category discussions, as of all those that I have started and/or participated in none have ever been resolved and closed.

Because I have this problem with A.Savin I am disliked by Admins and cannot get help. Before he entered my life at the Commons this year I had no problems and have been immensely productive since 2016. Now all has changed. I do not know how to remedy this. I have no problems at all with non Admins,

How can this be handled? What should I do? Can I recreate those deleted categories? They are perfectly valid and other users added to them, including User:Auntof6. I received a post on my talk page from a user upset with the spiral staircase deletion for France. Can A.Savin be made to follow policy if others are afraid of him? Thank you, Krok6kola (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the second time I've been mentioned in connection with this issue. I wouldn't attach any special significance to the fact that I used any of these categories, and I don't think it matters which user(s) used them. When I used them, I wasn't aware that they were contentious. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@Auntof6: I apologize to you for mentioning you. I did not know the categories were contentious at the time I made them. It was just so wonderful to see people using the new categories immediately. I am sorry. Krok6kola (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I see the same contentious personalities conflict. Either way, while it would normally seems quite inappropriate for anyone to be intentionally gutting categories and then using the emptiness of the categories as an excuse for its deletion (worse if it's an administrator), the Village Pump gave you an answer. The person who created it didn't think it made sense and it was that way for twelve years. If you want it changed, then propose a renaming of the category (or suggest a split). Going in another place and arguing about the same people again and again (especially with the "cabal of admins all hate me" routine) will not get you a lot of sympathy. You created something that everyone else considered resolved, an admin enforced the old policy, and it's back to that. If you want it changed, go argue your case but drop the personal attacks as it does not change the issue. The discussion is ongoing at Village Pump. Can we agree to resolve it there rather than having rounds of the same issues everywhere? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ricky81682: This Admin has abused his powers and done this repeatedly to me, starting with three block warnings for vandalism within a couple of days this spring. In four years I had never received any warning before. Here it was established that my edits were not vandalism and as a result, A.Savin is not allowed to block me.
    Also, the discussion at the Village Pump you mentioned is going nowhere. I started a CFD on the issue as I was told to do, although I've never seen one ever resolve anything. Krok6kola (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, given that Krok6kola is now mass-moving files back into all these "Spiral staircases" categories anyway, without even waiting for responses, this discussion is pointless anyway; of course apart from the special point in reporting me on every occasion. --A.Savin 03:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @A.Savin: I have removed all the red links, per your objection. I undid all the work I did to satisfy you, although I see relinks all the time and they are often helpful. I will not touch any of this images or categories again without permission. I Had thought this was a collaborative project. Krok6kola (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    • This is the third place essentially the same discussion is taking place. User:Krok6kola was (and perhaps is) doing this wrong, editing where there is a dispute without first waiting to form a consensus. In fact, I agree that Category:Spiral staircases is a better name, and would support that in a CFD (which is where this should have been sorted out in the first place) but this is a process problem, not a content problem, and in any case there is no justification for having two parallel synonymous categories, each with their own large collection of images and subcats. I've found User:A.Savin high-handed in the past, but his conduct here is fine. Krok6kola: if you do the wrong thing, you shouldn't be surprised it gets reverted. - Jmabel ! talk 04:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I see that Krok6kola says above I was not helpful. It all gets a bit hard to follow as the discussion is now spread over multiple venues. If I advise someone that they are doing something the wrong way and that the should stop, and they do not heed that advice, it is technically true that they have not been helped by my advice, but I believe that most people here would have found that advice helpful. - Jmabel ! talk 04:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Korok6kola, a disagreement with you doesn't make it wrong, just a disagreement. If you cannot respect the idea that other people may have legitimate disagreement that aren't a personal attack on you, you will (and have) found yourself very frustrated here. And I don't see how it's an abuse of admin powers but you seem set on arguing yourself into getting blocked here so I can't help you there. Again, a fundamental rule here is assume good faith but better yet, you should just assume assume everyone else is an idiot and provide a better explanation than "admins hate me." I wish you luck. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ricky81682: This is not about a disagreement. This is about continual harassment from User:A.Savin This only seems like a disagreement. And I have readily complied with all advice once I realized that I had created a problem. Please understand my history with A.Savin. This is the only time he has had a valid point in all the times he has complained about me.
  • After over 400,000 edits and having never received and warnings at all from Admins, I receive three warnings from A.Savin within three days in May 2020.
  • He then reported me here Admins said my behavior clearly was not vandalism. They said A.Savin could not block as he was personally involved with me.
    Since then he has harassed and followed me around reverting my edits in such places as Wisconsin, Utah, Alaska, wrongly deleting categories in Pakistan I created etc. So almost daily I get red alerts that he has reverted something minor. No other editor does that to me.
    He deletes all my attempts to reason with him on his page and does not communicate with me on mine.
    In this one time he was right about the staircase categories; but he could have explained to me why he was right before letting me continue. There are so many confusing and overlapping categories in "by country" and categories with "stairs" "staircases" etc. that in seeking to clean up the overpopulated Category:Staircases it was not obvious to be that I was committing a blunder. So all my hard work was deleted. And when I put redlinks in the hope that in the future this would be helpful, entailing more hard work, A.Savin complained about those so I removed them.
    I am unable to get help anywhere on the Commons regarding this problem with A.Savin which has removed my joy here; it has harmed me and I can no longer do good work here. I am too rattled and scared. I am no longer trusting and I cannot think clearly here. How would you handle this problem with A.Savin?
    I would truly appreciate any advice, not on this issue but on the harassment by A.Savin in general. The underlying reason I posted here is being ignored. Krok6kola (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It is hard to believe every edit of yours is correct when there is no support for it. The number of prior edits to this conflict is irrelevant. Either way, this has been resolved and I find your antics annoying. After threatening to block you, A.Savin was actually blocked which found excessive so an unblocking following. Drop the damn stick and move on. No one cares about someone threatening to block you months ago when they were then blocked and everyone found that excessive. If you keep this up (and you should be blocked just to get you to move on), then feel free to complain yet again but you have already lost my sympathy here. You are being insanely and annoyingly sensitive about a warning which looks more and more legitimate the more I see you whining and complaining. I suggest you instead learn to communicate and have real discussions with other people before wildly creating categories that many, many other find not just wrong but actively disruptive. If someone notifying you that you are being disruptive enough to be worthy of a block (while actually doing nothing) results in you continually making page-long screeds about admin abuse months later and acting like it's the true end of the world if you got banned for something you don't consider disruptive, then you don't have the emotional competence to be here and should find something else to do with your time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ricky81682: I sadly have to agree with your assessment concerning Krok6kola. However I cannot share your view about A.Savin’s block, that «everyone found that excessive» — maybe everyone who expressed their opinion did, but many did not express their opinion. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Attack account

Attack account with uploads.--BevinKacon (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef Gbawden (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. I deleted speedily one photoshopped collage ("Me shaking hands with Putin") and nominated the rest uploads for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Repeatedly requesting previously declined file renames

User:Euro2024 is repeatedly requesting renaming of files with insufficient justification and which have already been repeatedly declined. He has previously been warned about this but it doesn't seem like this has changed his behavior TommyG (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC).

✓ Done. I blocked Euro for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

An admin that I have had to explain Russian copyright to in the past (for filing "Keep" on an item that clearly did not meet Wikimedia Commons standards for proving public domain status) failed to acknowledge their mistake and continues to make hasty incorrect rulings that are not based on the fundamental facts at hand. (See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Vasily Konstantinovich Blyukher - I specifacally pointed out that there was no evidence any of the files were published early enough for EITHER PD-Russia-1996 or PD-Russia to apply, but despite all the clear-cut facts at hand, they left the two-word "per pierreselim" as their reason for keeping the files, despite the fact that pierreselim never proved that the files met any PD-Russia requirements. URAA is not sole reason for deletion - the photos MUST be PD in the country of origin, and that means they must be published in Russia before 1950 as I clearly explained (per PD-Russia), but that was completely ignored with a strawman "URAA shouldn't be sole reason for deletion" (nevermind that not being PD in home country in addition to not being PD in America IS a valid reason for deletion). With the fact that there was no evidence the photos were PD in their country of origin was left ignored, the closing admin whose known lack of understanding of Russian copyright law should have lead them to abstain from judging in such rulings decided to close the case anyway DESPITE all of what I clearly explained ruled keep against better judgement for the interests of the Wikimedia community. Photos with unknown author and first known published in 2010 are NOT public domain in Russia. That is not debatable.

On another note, because such incidents like this are not unusual, in addition to disciplinary measures being taken against the admin in question (Indeedous), I highly recommend that passing an international copyright knowledge test, or possibly multiple tests on different copyright rules by territory (designed by Wikimedia and hosted on an outside server so that non-PD images can be part of test questions) be required in order for users to be promoted to the position of admin, and they can then only rule on cases involving copyright that have knowledge of (ex, if an admin passes the Italian copyright law test/section of questions but fails the Russian copyright law test/section of questions, then they can rule on cases of Italian copyright law, but not on cases of Russian copyright law, etc). In addition to making Commons more meritocratic it would help improve admin performance and reduce the amount of contested deletion nominations. I would be happy to help construct such test(s).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@PlanespotterA320: Why didn't you wait for a response to your question at Indeedous's talk page and why didn't you notify him about opening this section at COM:AN/U? It is always possible that an important point was overlooked in the closure of a deletion request. It is best then to sort this out directly with the closing admin and to wait for a response before further community input is asked for. And another note. Please provide diff links for your claims. If you claim that someone closed multiple deletion requests wrongly, then I would like to see the corresponding diffs including your attempts to sort this out directly with the closing admin. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The wrongly closed as "keep" deletion nominations - Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Vasily Konstantinovich Blyukher and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leon trotsky.jpg (just the ones I can recall off the top of my head). There are two notifications on their talkpage attempting (so far in vein) to correct their misconceptions about copyright are visible on their talkpage (and so far with no acknowledgement of any wrongdoing). Because this is not the first time I have had to explain this to them, and given how they responded to my previous attempt at explaining things (and then proceeded to ignore the rules later), I knew that I had to get higher authorities involved. If he/she had not responded so poorly to my first warning from earlier, I would not have posted here. But I obviously cannot expect to have a meaningful discussion with them about this on their talkpage given how well that went last time (no matter how many times I tried to have one). This is the only place such discussion could occur, so I had no choice but to take it here.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@PlanespotterA320: The closure of the most recent deletion request you refer to is from 14:39, 3 September 2020, the last edit by Indeedous is from 17:01, 3 September 2020, your notice on Indeedous's talk page is from 18:46, 4 September 2020. However, you did not wait for any response but opened this section on 19:08, 4 September 2020‎. In the previous case from May 2020, Indeedous refered you to Commons:Deletion requests#Appealing_decisions but you did not reopen that deletion request for months but waited until right now. Again, this premature for COM:AN/U. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't understand your aggressive behaviour. For me it's just an objective topic to work on and no personal thing. I already understood your point of view the last time and still don't agree with it. Your DR was open since 2019 (!) and surely seen by a dozen of admins, who obviously didn't agree with you to delete the files. In my personal opinion, massive deletion requests without any need or proof are vandalism. But such a discussion leads nowhere. --Indeedous (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not being aggressive - I am merely abiding by Commons policy to the letter. The fact that you selected "keep" against the letter of the law on Russian copyright and official Commons policy - and have repeatedly ignored the wide consensus of Wikimedians that created in a year a certain date does not equal published in that year, and failed to recind your incorrect "keep" rulings, falsely accused me of vandalism (of all things), and acting like this is a matter of opinion and interpretation - not basic facts and rules on Commons, I now am even more certain that it was right to take your behavior to the user problems board. I do not normally take things here, since the last time I attempted to engage in explanation with you on your talkpage was an unconstructive utter disaster and you were obvioudly unwilling to parcicipate (if it could be called that) in reconciliation to my first warning (only telling me to appeal it and not acknowledging any wrongdoing or mistake on your part despite all the facts clearly laid out and repeatedly attempting to explain things), I expected you to do exactly the same (wrong) thing. Which would not address the situation at all. Therefore, I had to take things here, the only place where there would be even a chance of you responding with more than a sentence - AND so that other, KNOWLEDGEBLE users could help educate you about this issue and reinforce the notions I explained above (since you clearly don't want to listen to me on this). I do not like attempting to explain official policy to people 5 times only to be shrugged off. There is no objective debate about the copyright status of the files in question or if they can be allowed on Wikimedia - there is a STRONG precedent, which you continue to ignore, that they CANNOT be on Commons WITHOUT an early enough publication found. This is a you problem, not a Commons problem, not a Planespotter problem.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I absolutely want to discuss that topic, this time (as you see below) and last time, as you see when you have a look at the link in my reply. You have your point and I have mine (same as @PierreSelim: ), so I just didn't want to waste our time on a private discussion. It was your choice not to discuss that topic in public, obviously you preferred rude comments on my disc. Glad you did it now. If there is a consensus for your opinion, you have something to rely on. If not, I have. Nevertheless I still don't agree with your discussion style, but yeah, let me get educated by knowledgeble users... --Indeedous (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
PierreSelim never demonstrated the notion that the items were PD in the country of origin, a requirement for commons, he ONLY said that they shouldn't be deleted IF they are PD in the home country but not US - to which I pointed out that there was STILL no evidence of being PD in the country of origin, which you obviously didn't take into account. As for the one and only time you responded to me on your talklpage (with a meager link), excuse me if I consider that to be an unsatisfactory response for an admin confronted with a prepondrance of evidence that they have done wrong doing and should be careful about copyright in the future. Sending that link WITHOUT further statement (such as "I understand that PD-Soviet is a depreciated template and should not be invoked", or "I apologize for not taking current law into account, I made a mistake", etc, WAS problematic and a deficient response. You are an administrator, not a new user, and you should know better than to pretend you did nothing wrong after invoking an argument dependent on a depreciated template (of a revoked law) when closing a deletion. Given such a non-chalant "just appeal it" attitude followed by ignoring everything else, it is clear that this is not a matter that can easily be resolved on your talkpage. As for wanting to have a discussion about the policy in question - there is NOTHING to discuss! It is a LONGSTANDING, WIDELY ACCEPTED policy that created before cutoff date ≠ published before the cutoff date, and when PD status is dependent on date of publication, SOLID evidence of publication (ie, the name and date or issue of the actual publication) is REQUIRED to be evident, and the burden of proof is on the uploader to provide it. There have been THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of cases on this issue (passed deletions of items invoking PD-Russia without the required publication) to support this precedent. Your idea that publication information shouldn't be required because era of publication can safely be "assumed" is FRINGE, INCORRECT, and it is frankly reprehensible that someone in a position as high as admin continues to push such nonsense against clear-cut policy just to avoid having to delete a few photos. Just because someone votes "keep" in a deletion nomination doesn't make their argument valid nor does it make invoking their argument for keeping an item to be valid - there has to be backing for the ruling based in Commons policy and copyright law, NOT measly assumptions of what one wants.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Handling of soviet/russian images taken before 1943 but without proof of publication before 1943

Let's use this for a discussion about the topic itself. How should we handle soviet/russian pictures that definitely were taken before 1943 by an unknown author when there is no proof of publication before 1943 given in the description? They would be public domain if they were published before 1943 and the author stayed unknown for 50 years. --Indeedous (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

To kick this off: In my opinion, there are more reasons to assume a publication. Usually (propaganda-)pictures are taken to be seen. They are historically valueable documents which are widely in use. There seems to be noone exept PlainspotterA320 who is starting those deletion requests, although there are copyright pros under russian wikimedians too. Next question: Even if we find the original publication before 1943, how can we proof that the author stayed unknown for the next 50 years? Thats absolutely impossible. There might as well be reasons to assume the opposite. But what would be the risks? If there are copyright claims for a single image, I'm quite sure we could find an evidence for publication with a few days of work. We don't need to be more catholic than the pope here. --Indeedous (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Presumptions have to be reasoned so that in the long term anyone wanting to verify the license chosen can understand that "significant doubt" of COM:PRP is addressed and doubts are not significant. A good example is the technical examination of a print. In prior cases by examining the lithograph print in detail, it was reasonable to assert that posters and post cards were published before c.1920 and probably 1890-1910, using colour lithograph printing methods that were later superseded. So as well as vaguely looking suitably "old", it is possible to provide qualitative tests that can justify large numbers of print scans. Whether you can make specific technical assertions about print methods, dated artistic style, or even use of print fonts, for the Russian publications is worth pursuing, and in legal copyright interpretation gives us the credibility of having addressed the "reasonable effort to determine copyright" that is needed. In many ways this means that exemplar deletion requests are very useful for saving volunteer time. If we can have sufficient quality evidence presented in a DR that convinces most folks one way or the other, then that exemplar can be used to make mass decisions with far less effort later on. If the "Russian case" remains complex, then it would even be worth establishing a reference case book or user essay/handy decision checklist. --Fæ (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
    • (sigh) This is NOT debatable. Commons:Burden of proof is an official policy. So is the precautionary principle. Lack of sufficient publication information is an instant cause of significant doubt about the freedom of a file. I am not the only person who accepts this, you two are in a minority of users who do not. Just because you don't like the rule doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Commons has REPEATEDLY upheld the notion that an early enough publication must be found if the copyright expiration is based on date of publication, not date of creation. Only a tiny percent of photos created pre-1943 in the USSR were published under circumstances that render them PD - not all photos created were even intended for publication; personal family portraits from photo albums, selfies among friends, etc. Many official Soviet government photographers like Max Penson would take a roll of film or more a day, select only the best few photos for publication in the newspapers, and archive the rest. It is NOT safe to assume that a photo was published early enough just becuase of when it was made. This is not negotiable. PD-Russia is based on publication date - it is not PD-China or PD-Italy with a basis in creation date. The fact that you are attempting to try to ressurect this notion long known by other admins to be unacceptable further proves that I was right to bring your behavior to the attention of other users here. I am not the only person filing these deletion requests, and I am not the only person aware that they are copyright violations (just ask an admin with knowledge of Russian copyright such as @Yann: or @Túrelio: ). Accusing me of vandalism for rightly pointing out the lax enforcement of rules on certain parts of Commons with files bearing unsubstantiated claims of PD status and attempting to rectify the sitution is absolutely inappropriate for an admin. My discussions files do not lead nowhere - they serve to deter users from uploading files without sufficient publication information in the future (since they know I will catch them), they bring attention to the problem so that the uploader is notified (if they have a desire to attempt to find an early enough publication), and in the end they result in the removal of photos that should NOT be on Commons (many of the items I nominate for deletion are still Russian government property). Just because you (Fæ and Indeedous) want something to be a rule or want to be allowed to assume something doesn't make it an permitted practice on Commons. All current rules, like Burden of Proof, still apply no matter how much we want to bend them or assume they mean the opposite.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
It would make more sense to understand what I wrote above, before criticising me for something I did not say. --Fæ (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
As I recall, you have previously unsuccessfuly attempted to claim, against standard practices and rules here, that it is "safe" to assume old Soviet photos to have been published early in cases where publication information in the infobox is lacking. You were wrong then, and Indeedous is still wrong now.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
It would make more sense to understand what I wrote above, before criticising me for something I did not say. --Fæ (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I read what you said about printing, and I call bullshit. It is very common for an image published in a good copy of a 1940's newspaper to be better quality/grain that an image published in a crappy 1980's encyclopedia. If the publication source of the scanned item is unknown, we should not assume it was published early enough just because of who is in the photo or how grainy it is. And I have repeatedly asserted that we CANNOT ASSUME ANYTHING WAS PUBLISHED EARLY ENOUGH WITHOUT EVIDENCE just because we want to. If something has to be published pre-1950 to be allowed on Commons, then we better find a pre-1950's publication and note it in the infobox. And don't go all broken record on me - you have come to several deletion nominations I filed and used various unsubstantiated "keep" arguments (of the type discussed above) that were all deemed insufficient grounds for keep. So please drop the attitude and accept the fact that items without evidence of early enough publication will eventually have to be deleted, like it or not.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Responding to the technical point, putting aside the incivility of the words used, the example was lithographs and the specific case mentioned was about the development of chromolithography which we have mass print example for right to around the end of the 1920s. In particular, that process involved the ink being manually refreshed for each colour on the planograph and there were observable differences between individual prints over print runs, and at image boundaries the separate colours would become noticeable as misalignments happened due to mechanical wear. For mass colour printing after the 1910s, technology adapted to handle a magnitude bigger, faster and more accurate runs. Using reference cases it is entirely reasonable to assess print decade, if not year, by how the colours align on the page, how many colours there are, whether there are visible print pixels, and how prints from the same run might have tiny variations. You also mention newspapers, and the use of specific fonts will be a key indicator of how the paper develops over time, the accuracy and apparent greyscale nature of images, types of adverts or other equivalent marginalia, and if the digital reproduction is fine enough, the deterioration of the paper used as it gets brittle and may suffer visible effects of oxidation depending on how the lignin in the paper mix reacts to light. These are technical observations with well established science, and in difficult collections could be supported by case books of evidence from real reference images we host rather than theories.
Rather than attacking others with claims of "bullshit", you may benefit from spending a day between each response and in that time study the exact words used and evidence that may support what others have said. If you carry on being rude, nobody is going to be interested in using their volunteer time engaging with you. We all have our pet interests that are more attractive than being shouted at. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
PlanespotterA320 is already for years on crusade, and the reason for this crusade is copyright paranoia. Yes, sure, for many Russian photos we do not have a publication proof. Yes, in many cases it is reasonable to occur that they were published before 1943. Yes, the fact of publication should be questioned in case of reasonable doubts, not blank nominated for deletion. In case of unreasonable doubts, even if we have the publication credentials, we can always demand that the uploader proves that this is first publication (as required by copyright law - many be the first publication indicates the name of the photographer), that this publication is actually legal, and many other things. In this way we can delete pretty much everything. What PlanespotterA320 thinks is reasonable is very different from what trhe majority of the community thinks is reasonable, but she is totally sure that her interpretation of the copyright law is absolutely correct, and everywhere else's around here is wrong. That's it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I am not on a "crusade", it is not personal - I am merely trying to enforce existing rules in parts of Commons where such rules have long are heavily ignored due to lax oversight from higher authorities in Commons compounded by and poor adminship (ie, Russian photos). And no, it is NOT reasonable, under ANY circumstance, to assume a photo was published before 1943 just because it is old. Most photos made at the time WEREN'T published. As for the rest - when we find an early 1940's newspaper with a historic photo sans attribution, we are able to figure out if PD-Russia applies via a simple logic process - if the early 1940's publication we hypothetically NOT the first publication of the matched photo, then it would still be safe, because it would just mean that the item was first published a little bit earlier than we know of, not later. Being published in a 1941 newspaper means that, by definition, said photo was first published no later than 1941. And if we can't find out the identity of the author by virtue of a with a more recent attribution in a more recent source after a thorough search of both the standard sources (RGAKFD, TASS, RIAN, goskatalog, etc) and exhaust all other options (reverse image search to see if anywhere with the photo has attribution) and still have no info on the identity of the author, then it is safe to officially consider the author to remain unknown, as demonstrated by this ruling (which should have clarified that rule to you). My standards of reasonable assumptions are the same as those outlined by Commons policies - not the lax standard that many are seeking to create in order to get around Commons licencing rules.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
In that ruling, I just did not have time to request you to prove that there was no earlier publication with the name of the author of the photo - which, if the author died after 1951 or if the author was executed and later rehabilitated - would make the photo instantly not PD. And, yes, I understand your position, that your understanding of the policies is correct, and everybody else's is wrong. That's ok. It just means that you need to find a different website, better aligned with your understanding of the policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Admirable confidence, but a method of haranguing, will fail to establish a consensus, and discourage other volunteers who may be interested in reading the case evidence to participate. --Fæ (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
This is not a matter of establishing any consensus. This is a matter of educating and reinforcing awareness of existing consensus. A small failure to acknowledge official policy by a few rogue users doesn't revoke consensus.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Ymblanter - if you HAD asked that question, I would have simply directed you to the various other publications of the same photo in the 1930's which ALL lacked attribution. In such a case where no author can be found despite searching far and wide, it is a REASONABLE conclusion that the author is unknown - then the burden of proof is on the deletion nominator to find an attribution to an author before going through (it is impossible to prove a negative) - certainly a far, far, far, more reasonable assumption than to assume that a photo was published early enough without attribution just because of how old it is. I am not the one who should "move on" to another website - if you want to upload old photos sans publication information, consider a site like waralbum.ru, which allows fair-use photos, INSTEAD of trying to find imaginary loopholes in the official Wikimedia Commons licencing policy that only allow photos under free licences (ie, truely not "potentially" public domain) to be uploaded. Spamming Wikimedia Commons with photos that cannot be verified as PD devalues the project as a whole as defeats the whole purpose of having Commons - remember - Commons is not a historical photo archive, it is "a collection of 63,999,920 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute". The standards I have outlined above are not just "my" standards, they are the same Commons policies that all well-read users are aware of and commit to, and have long been enforced by the majority of our respected admins. There have always been, and will always be, a few less-well-read, less by-the-bok people going "muh this photo is old/why do I have to find a publication/can't I just assume it's PD/why should anyone care", and they have never been, nor should they ever be, taken seriously. Those who hold such misconceptions about publication vs creation date (which in the past including myself) should be corrected and educated about the wrongfulness of their views and be properly informed of official commons policy - not be given a platform to whine about how unfair those rules are, whine about it's all personal, or pretend that their viewpoints are a legitimate matter of debatable opinion, or cook up a small amount of pseudo-"consensus" to attempt to redefine existing laws contrary to official interpretations. Thousands upon thousands of cases and users have upheld the undebatable notion that time of creation ≠ time of publication, and no users have the right to overule or contest that basic fact.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@AFBorchert: I think the discussion above outlines why my bringing this here wasn't premature. Anyway, what I find strange is that, while you correctly acknowledge the lack of sufficient publication information to be grounds for deletion (unlike the admin in question who had to be brought here), you seem to have refrained from attempting to correct your fellow admin's incorrect ideas about the issue nor have you explained the correct policies to all the other users indulging in this discussion about redefining fundamental Commons policies. I would appreciate some backup at the moment given the persistence of the other users (and admin) in enforcing the legitimacy of their warped ideas of how Commons works.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Nice condescending lecture. In reality, the degree of proof has required for being PD for Commons' purposes is and always has been debated.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
This seems to be an inappropriate subject for AN/U; it really should be on VP/C. Then again, someone who complains that a user "pretend{s} that their viewpoints are a legitimate matter of debatable opinion", especially when the degree of certainty needed to keep a file certainly is a legitimate matter of debatable opinion, might well need to be here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that this certainly isn't the place for arguing the tired and debunked point that creation date = publication date. This issue came here because an admin was making keep rulings based on that flawed premise, and instead of acknowledging wrongdoing in those rulings, they decided that the best way to deflect responsiblity would be to attempt to argue that they did nothing wrong in the first place (contrary to all current policies and precedents about the importance of finding publication). We need to drop the tired and debunked "is publication nessesary" debate (yes, it absolutely is when the copyright tag in question is dependent on date of publication, regardless creation date, we have always prohibited "assuming" something was published early enough just because we want to/muh it looks old) and focus on the real question: Why is an admin allowing files lacking crucial publication information to be kept, and why are they being allowed to carry on with their behavior (not facing discipinary action for repeatedly ruling "keep" on files they are clearly well aware lacked such publication info), shrugging off responsiblity, denying wrongdoing, and go on the offensive by acting as if their behavior is normal and in line with current copyright policy (which it isn't)? I would argue that Indeedous's behavior here (acknowledging the lack of evidence of early enough publication but insisting on not doing anything wrong - contrary to ALL policies) is grounds for de-adminship or at the very least. Allowing Commons to be polluted with so many photos that are highly, highly, highly doubtful to be PD and lack any evidence of such status does damage to the whole project. Right now because of teh plethora of non-free media infiltrating certain categories under such bogus creation date = publication date prextexts, large portions of the entire project cannot be trusted to actually contain ANY truly free media at all (like the section of historic Russian photos), which is truely problematic for the "average joe" who won't be able to tell the difference in the legitimacy of the PD status of something I uploaded with evidence of PD-Russia status (like solid publication before the cutoff date sans attribution and the author still remains unknown) versus some old photo owned by RIA Novosti or TASS that a low-effort uploader decided to slap a PD-Russia tag and throw in no sourcing information besides a link to some Russian social media site. I wish I did not have to be so assertive about these matters, but this admin hasn't exactly been co-operative in this matter considering they actually attempted to start a debate about a long-closed issue here of all places just to deflect responsibility.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
We have not prohibited assumptions; cf. {{PD-old-assumed}}. COM:PRP is all about "to the best of our knowledge ... where there is significant doubt". We always make assumptions; is File:"Song of Shambhala".jpg really a painting of Nicholas Roerich? Are you going to propose it for deletion because we only have the claim of the uploader on that and no online source claiming that? Or if an online source can be found, can it be trusted? Maybe it was a forgery in 1955 by one of his disciples?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. And when was it published and in which circumstances?--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Community concensus on this issue is quite sketchy. However, there is one thing that I think everybody is clear on, a file that has just survived a deletion request should not be tagged with a {{speedy}} tag. I have helped out by converting one file into a regular deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:1915 vasily blukher.jpg), but I do not have time or desire to go through all of the files. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 20:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Community consensus has strongly been for over a decade that ANY file invoking a PD tag with PD status conditional on publication (not creation) before a cutoff date, (be it PD status in the US, Canada, or elsewhere) - that the sourcing information must clearly layout when and where it was published before the cutoff date (what magazine/book/newspaper). There has long been lax enforcement of this rule for photos invokeing PD-Russia (and other post-soviet copyright tags like PD-Ukraine and PD-Belarus) than for photos from the West using respective publication-date based templates (there is very littly disagreement about the need for an early enough publication date for American copyright tags like PD-US-expired because users of the template are generally more aware of the copyright law in question, bother to read the template, and/or understand the importance of following the rules). It is no secret that the Russian photo section of Wikimedia Commons is the "wild west" of licensing compliance, to put it mildly, for a variety of reasons, but the fact that breaking the rules have become common practice to such an extent people think that they become in denial of the fact that they're breaking doesn't mean they are any less wrong. We should not give any publication-based copyright law country an exception to our sourcing rules just because users are persistent in violating them or even if they have a "consensus" among themselves that the rules are different for them. Until Russian copyright law is changed so that the 70 (or 74) year countdown starts at time of creation instead of time of publication, we cannot act like it does.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
      • You keep harping on "Community consensus" against so many people; it doesn't make any sense. If there was a strong community consensus, you wouldn't have to make these arguments.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Brobt

Brobt [35] is repeatedly reverting the Syrian Civil War map from a referenced version to an unreferenced version. Starts threats and shouting when reminded his changes lack references. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Syrian_Civil_War_map.svg GnomonTimber (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

You linked sources 2 years old, accepted it, and after two weeks I verified my information and I wrote three sentences addressing this issue. Also, my response, in its entirety, was the following;

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I took a look on a whim today and realized something. For one, the module ABSOLUTELY reflects these changes, and secondly, the sources you linked were clearly dated to 2018, not 2020. The Russian source doesn’t distinguish between Coalition and Kurds, and ETANA is literally a perfect copy of this version of the svg.

Calling this “Threats and shouting” is ridiculous and I’m genuinely disgusted you have the gall to classify it as such. Your account’s activity is solely comprised of undoing my corrections, yet you call my edits aggressive. Brobt (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Gjeon338

Continues uploading copyvios after being blocked on Aug 19, 2020. FunnyMath (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Gjeon for a month (second block). Taivo (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

GabAlyanna

Continues to upload files claimed as own work, which are clealy not, even after block. File:Metal Sheen 2.png is on unfree stock sites dated years ago. Suggest indef block and deletion of all uploads.--BevinKacon (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by Taivo for 3 months Gbawden (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. {{Maybe next time indefinite. And I deleted all his/her uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Williamesc13

Williamesc13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - prolong uploads of problem files. Кронас (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

 Comment This user had already been warned 4 days ago by myself, both here and on French Wikipedia, where I explained the problem in further details. He's therefore fully aware that copyvio is not acceptable. --Titlutin (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done --Minoraxtalk 05:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

2600 IP creating mass DRs fast

Contributions - 10 edits/min, so looks like bot automation.

Could someone mass revert these please? There's no need to encourage pron warriors using IPv6 addresses. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the IP to start with but I do not have automatic tools to revert--Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted and deleted the DR part of their edits. Materialscientist (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I use en:User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Pbdragonwang

I found this statement on Pbdragonwang's talkpage: “基於過去發生的種種不愉快，本人拒絕再與User:Kai3952互動.“ I think that this is indicative of his attitude: Refused to cooperate with User:Kai3952. Per en:WP:CIR and the obvious fact that this is a problem with his attitude used when socializing and cooperating with other users.

The last time I've tried to communicate with Pbdragonwang, but he is insistent that he is correct and and repeatedly emphasized “Some of these places such as Kinmen and Matsu should be belong to the Republic of China instead of Taiwan.“ In this case, I suggested he take it to the "Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Taiwan" page in order to get the consensus we need. However, he continually disregards my suggestion and continues to accuse me of wasting his time. I really felt his comments reflected more of his personal political views rather than being an insight into problems with working on categorizing the Taiwan categories. I have been quite patient with him and tried to give him explanations how Commons works, as well as there are still many major lingering issues that have not been clarified by the Commons community. That said,I rejected his request to placed them (Kinmen and Matsu) both under the Republic of China categories. Unfortunately, instead of the desired result, this simply led to increasing his hostility towards me and nagging me on my talk page.

I warned him about en:WP:CIR on his talk page, but instead of helping me and resolving this issue he continued to argue with me and prolong the situation. Now he is doing it again. Just look at 14:16, 4 September 2020. Honestly, I felt his behavior was harassment because he could not stop himself from nagging me even after warning -- I don't intend to waste my time on this, and eventually I was forced to do that (his request) by myself.--Kai3952 (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Because my English ability is limited, some sentences may be rather blunt.（I use google to translating） I never force Kai3952 to do anything . This is a false accusation. He thought I was putting pressure on him, but I don't. He keeps misinterpreting my words, so I had to refuse to interact with him. --祥龍 (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Please stop and do not ping me again. You are boring, and not worth my time or energy.--Kai3952 (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus on this point. I also have the same opinion. I won't try to explain my words again on your page. That doesn't work at all.--祥龍 (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know, your recent actions are not benefiting Wikimedia Commons, but I can do nothing to stop you. If you want to continue arguing, go ahead, I wont argue.--Kai3952 (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators, that overbearing attitude is obvious from his recent comment where he said: “I won't try to explain my words again on your page. That doesn't work at all.“ In the time he has been arguing with me, I've done what he said (his request) and also kept the category he created in order to stop arguing with me. He now continues to refuse to cooperate with the other editors. I think that his actions are not benefiting Wikimedia Commons - if he doesn't improve his bad communication, he should change his attitude slightly. "Bad communication" means he is unable to communicate rationally with me not only about his discussion, but also he denied that he asked me to do something and posted this statement on his talk page: “基於過去發生的種種不愉快，本人拒絕再與User:Kai3952互動.“--Kai3952 (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators, Kai3952 still misinterpretes my words. I never ask him moving 「Category:Historic buildings (historic monuments) in Taiwan」 to 「Category:Historic buildings (historic monuments) in the Republic of China」. The thing I done was creating 「Category:Historic Buildings of the Republic of China」 including 「Category:Historic buildings (historic monuments) in Taiwan」, not moved 「Category:Historic buildings (historic monuments) in Taiwan」. I tried to explain my words many times on his page in the past, but he still can't understand. So I refuse communicate with him --the sentence has changed, now means "avoid communicating with Kai3952". Because keeping communicating with Kai3952 makes me frustrated and pressured. I don't refuse to cooperate with the other editors, only Kai3952. This is an evidence that Kai3952 still misinterpretes my words.

In fact, at Facebook group of Taiwanese Wikipedia community, there are other people having opinions on his attitude.--祥龍 (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Off-wiki forums are not evidence that should be linked to at AN/U. --Fæ (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I just want others know not only me has opinions on his attitude.--祥龍 (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
links removed.--祥龍 (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The statement on his talk page: “基於過去發生的種種不愉快，本人拒絕再與User:Kai3952互動.“ is changed to "基於過去發生的各種事件，本人認為必須與User:Kai3952避免有任何互動。" at 23:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC) . Means "I try to avoid communicating with Kai3952." Because he keeps misinterpreting my words, it too hard for me to communicating with him. If others think that statement should be removed, I will remove it. --祥龍 (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pbdragonwang: I checked the discussion about Kinmen when you posted a complaint to Facebook about I twisting your words at Wikimedia Commons. I'm sorry that what I said caused you to think that I disagree that Kinmen belongs to the Republic of China. When you said: “「Historic buildings (historic monuments) in Kinmen‎ 」從「Historic buildings (historic monuments) in Taiwan」的分類分出來“ and “金門、馬祖也是直屬於中華民國而非臺灣“, I thought you were discussing about the "Historic buildings (historic monuments) in Kinmen"‎ category is classified under Category:Historic buildings (historic monuments) in the Republic of China, but again it appears I am mistaken.--Kai3952 (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Mrfefe1

Mrfefe1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - prolong uploads of problem files. Кронас (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him/her for 3 months (second block) and will delete his/her last remaining uploads. Taivo (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Se7aemad

Se7aemad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - mass copyright violations. Many notices. Кронас (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for 2 weeks and will delete his uploads as copyvios (covers, posters and so on). Taivo (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Vidomi

Vidomi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - mass copyvio violations. Кронас (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user. A lot of copyvios are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Mam na imię Maksymilian

Mam na imię Maksymilian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - mass copyvio violations. Кронас (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

General question re: template

For years a user has been arbitrarily & without any actual knowledge changing the categories of images of living persons from, for example "Women with red hair" to "women with artificial red hair". User quickly deletes warnings from h talk page. I would like to add {{subst:test3}} to h talk page. Am I allowed to do so without being an administrator? And can the user just delete it at whim? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I saw this. I'm wondering whether the red or the hair is artificial, and whether it applies to wigs or dyed hair, temporary or permanent. Not convinced this is a useful category to have- for one thing, how do we know, and it should be applied, if at all, to single images rather than categories, for the temporary/permanent/wig issue. Anyone can add a template to a talk page. If she deletes it, it's taken as acknowledgment that it has been read. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_87&oldid=461210754"