Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 88

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

Luisantoniolima21

Luisantoniolima21 ( local | logs | global ) can't stop uploading copyvio images on Commons. Almost all images they uploaded on Commons were deleted for copyvio and the ones still remaining are not "own work" as they claim. They were already warned and they keep their behaviour. Something must be done.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 22:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Should be posted at COM:AN/B, since they uploaded after the final notice (cease copyright violations) was posted on the user talk page. Bidgee (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Bidgee Thanks for the answer. I'll do it.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 23:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Mrcl lxmna

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

my response: im trying to be more cautious in making those deletion requests. but pls take into account the no freedom of pano situation in the phils, strengthened by fair use like provisions in the copyright law of that country in terms of reproductions of copyrighted works in the country. it is becoming evident that defenses made by jwilz, p199, exec8, et al are being unheeded bcos these are not complying to the copyright law of the phils. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

it is very unreasonable to say that im abusing when the evidence is pretty compelling that they (the users) continue to upload photos of copyrighted and potentially copyrighted sculptures and bldgs when in the fact that, as one of your moderators said, commons is not accepting fair use type derivatice works. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

 Comment I find it rather strange that a “new” editor knows how to mass nominate and have a JavaScript. Stop socking, it is clear just going by how well you know processes work (nominating and js) and cease the disruptive mass DR nominations. Bidgee (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • From one of their "targeted users": considering their highly-disruptive behavior and the potential to continue their acts, may I suggest some form of disciplinary action against this Mrcl lxmna or whoever they are? If blocking seems "highly inappropriate," can their ability to use deletion tools be disabled? For the duration, I leave that decision to the more veteran admins. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe the mass deletions are more disruptive than helpful. There is no consensus prior to the deletion requests. I also agree with JWilz12345 that maybe the person can have restrictions in deletion requests, lest they are indeed a sock. Higad Rail Fan (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I will copy my reply in that discussion here, for everybody's reference: I categorically deny that the user User:Mrcl lxmna is me. I have been a contributor to Commons since 2016. I have uploaded many photos here in Commons, some are even at risk of being deleted due to Template:PD-PhilippinesGov issues. I do however concede that I have been creating many deletion requests this past couple of months because in my view, COM:FOP issues here in the Philippines are not in any way different that that of Ukraine, France, and Italy where we have seen countless mass deletions of very famous landmarks like the Louvre Pyramid. All my deletion requests are sourced, I have contacted various government institutions with regards to copyright ownership, and I have been very active in the deletion requests discussions of the new user, issuing many  Keep,  Delete and  Comment replies. I am deeply hurt with these wild speculations but I completely understand your sentiments. Please provide solid proof, anything beyond mere guesswork, that User:Mrcl lxmna is a product of my alleged deletion kink. Why on earth would I create a sock puppet when I myself create DRs using my own account? Logic please. Howhontanozaz (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
One week is too short. 02:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Username violation and promotional uploads

Should be posted at COM:AN/B. Bidgee (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. I warned the user. No edits since 25th of August, all contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Now the account is globally locked. Taivo (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Soul Train

Soul Train (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) has been edit-warring and reverting over consensus for several months now at File:Japan (orthographic projection).svg.

He has been informed on file's talk page that "Light green is standard for uncontrolled claims within this map series". This is true, per w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Orthographic maps. He has also been asked to review Commons:Overwriting existing files, which applies especially for such a high-visibility image.

However, he has continued to revert, with his most recent summary stating: "There is no "dispute" between Russia and Japan. These are Japan's inner dreams." Evidently, this user refuses to accept the w:Kuril Islands dispute. — Goszei (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

 Comment In my opinion the current version is correct. Kuril Islands dispute exists in Japan's inner dreams. Taivo (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 Comment Note that COM:OVERWRITE is not about consensus. Indeed it doesn't even mention the word. COM:OVERWRITE says that if anyone objects to a change to a file, it should be reverted. This is deliberate: Commons generally values stability over having the "right" file at any particular name. Unfortunately this simple principle gets rather tangled when applied to a file with eight different versions and multiple participants. --bjh21 (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Improper file renames by A1Cafel

A1Cafel (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has been making improper renames with files such as File:Cyclone Pam Mar 15 2015 0205z.jpg to File:Pam Mar 15 2015 0205Z.jpg, File:Cyclone Pam Mar 13 2015 0225z.jpg to File:Pam Mar 13 2015 0225Z.jpg, doing so without any summary given as to why they renamed and also removing the simple description of "Cyclone" makes the file name less meaningful. I have tried on the user talk page but seems to not get the message regarding COM:FRNOT. Bidgee (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I have explained my move in the talk page, but you refuse to listen. You know nothing about the title of tropical cyclones and simply blaming me that I'm violating COM:FR. This is a common practice to use the format <Name> YYYY-MM-DD XXXXZ (formerly <Name> Month Day Year XXXXZ) in tropical cyclones. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Show me please a guideline here on Commons which would imply that "Pam Mar 15 2015 0205Z.jpg" is a more appropriate filename rather than "Cyclone Pam Mar 15 2015 0205z.jpg". Thanks --A.Savin 12:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
COM:FRC#4: Harmonize the names of a set of images. See the related category as evidence. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
No A1Cafel this is a clear violation of the renaming guidelines. You're doing file name "improvement" here. Don't do that. Please stop these kind of renaming of files. Multichill (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Harmonizing a set of files is for when some template needs file to have a special name for it to work. Example some railroad templates. Can you show me any template that need files of tropical cyclones to have a special name to work? --MGA73 (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Look, from my experience, all files for tropical cyclones are usually named "Laura Aug 26 2020 1045Z.jpg" not "Hurricane Laura Aug 26 1045Z". Some files are also named "Laura 2020-08-26 1045Z" or something like that. Usually, files do not have the title "Tropical Storm" or "Hurricane" or "Cyclone" or "Typhoon" before the name. Destroyeraa (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
You've only been a contributor since January this year, so you don't yet have the "experience". As Multichill and MGA73 states, harmonising file names is only done so for images used in templates (e.g. Category:Diagrams of Illinois county route markers). Using such flawed harmonising argument would mean all files in categories such as Category:Cyclone Helen (and for A1Cafel's information regarding their personal attack below, I do know about tropical cyclones) would need to be renamed but they shouldn't be since these are not in a set as per the note on
"4. harmonize the names of a set of images" at COM:FNC
"Just because images share a category does not mean that they are part of a set. There are two scenarios that this criterion is designed for. First, certain complex templates (such as those that use BSicons or that display football kits) assume that the images used in them will follow a specific naming convention. Wikisource also uses a specific naming convention for the source files they transcribe. Second, files that form parts of a whole (such as scans from the same book or large images that are divided into smaller portions due to Commons’ upload size restriction) should follow the same naming convention so that they appear together, in order, in categories and lists.".
What I find interesting is anytime A1Cafel's actions are called into question, they fail to address them (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 85#A1Cafel, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 86#A1Cafel - Proposing ban on the user filing deletion requests and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 87#A1Cafel), after MGA73 questions them above. A1Cafel would be better off fixing the file names to meaningful one on the recent uploads they have been doing and demonstrate to us (the community) the correct use of the File mover permission. Bidgee (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Bidgee

Bidgee know nothing about tropical cyclones and blaming me that violating COM:FR. He refuses to listen to my explanation and even threaten me that he will remove my filemover rights. The threatening behaviour is violating COM:CIVIL. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

WOW, I didn't say I will have it removed, but stated "request". Use the file mover permission correctly. Bidgee (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
No, this is not going to fly A1Cafel. Drop that stick. Multichill (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads by KotekPL1

KotekPL1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • This user uploaded lots of copyrighted company logos under free license. Some of them can be kept as PD-textlogos, but the majority are to be deleted. It would be better to have an admin go through their uploads. Meiræ 17:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked him for a week and will delete his copyvios. Taivo (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Media in category "Sri Ramakrishna Math in Bagbazar"

Dear fellow Wikipedians, There are 16 photos in Media in category "Sri Ramakrishna Math in Bagbazar", but sadly they are of "Sarada Ma's house" and totally unrelated. So please immediately remove the pictures from this heading..... Regards, Anupam Dutta 02:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupamdutta73 (talk • contribs) 2020-09-12 02:22:52 (UTC)

Dear Tuválkin, Guide me to the right direction.... Anupam Dutta 06:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: , thanks for pinging me. I had a chat with the uploader of the photographs @Indrajitdas: regarding this. He will check and re-categorize them correctly, if needed. Thanks. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Jeff_G. User:Prüm

Cartoon depicting Leopold II and other imperial powers at Berlin conference 1884

Template:Further 2 German trolls and royalists who are accusing me of fraud, and vandalising my uploads and reverting my edits, because i placed 2 pictures on the German page of Leopold II and Otto von Bismarck, probably both there beloved leaders. please make them stop! LordLiberty (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@LordLiberty: I am not a German, a troll, or a royalist, take that back! I am trying to defend this project, users, and reusers from all who would frustrate it's usability. You allegedly placed a bogus CC license and claimed to be the copyright holder while uploading File:Affiche Janssens tegen Peeters film uit 1940.jpg, which is still copyrighted and has been deleted. You uploaded File:Berchtesgaden 16 novembre 1940.jpg, which is still copyrighted and has been deleted. You uploaded File:Frontpage of English Newspaper "The daily Mail" of september 9 1940.jpg, which is probably still copyrighted and has been deleted. You placed a bogus CC license and claimed to be the copyright holder while uploading File:Propaganda Poster SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division Langemarck met anti-Semitisch opschrift Samen zullen wij hem verpletteren!.jpg and File:Propaganda wervings Poster SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division Langemarck met opschrift Vlamingen alle in de SS langemarck.jpg, which have been corrected.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

So you are defending this project, with bullying, with treathening , with all kind of infoboxes and messages presenting yourself as if you are a person of authority, by reverting my legitimate edits, by vandalising my uploads with bogus infoboxes, by accusing me of fraud, by being a troll, because i offended your royal and Imperial hero kings and emporers, that is defending the project, right... if you look at my page you will see those disputes are solved a long time ago on a friendly base with respect by friendly, wikipedia users, trying to help me on putting the right info, corecting some things and adding some things, not by being a troll like you, now stop waisting my time! LordLiberty (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This bulying started after i added relevant legitimate pictures on the German pages of Leopold II and Otto Von Bismarck, its a troll network, that is now combindly trying to use its tactics to bully me of this website with all kind of bogus claims. LordLiberty (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

These messages, however bothersome they appear to you, inform the users of your files that there are potential problems with them regarding Commons:Licensing. You would do good to read up on this subject, follow the advice on your talk page and correct those issues and stay civil in your comments here and elsewhere on Commons. --Prüm (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Those messages are there because you are offended by the cartoons of Leopold II and Otto Von Bismarck, dont try to change the subject.. you started adding all kind of boxes to ALL MY UPLOADS, not some, not those this other guy is talking about, no on ALL my uploads, and then you saw the bullying didn't work, so now you trying to change the subject to this few pictures, people already told me before how to upload on my page in April, i already corrected everything back then, and i do the same exact procedure since then also, this is just an attempt to silence me, to scare me away, thats what it is, you are the uncivil one, not me, i am just pointing out what you are trying to do by using the correct words, and that is trolling!LordLiberty (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

And also about this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Propaganda_Poster_SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division_Langemarck_met_anti-Semitisch_opschrift_Samen_zullen_wij_hem_verpletteren!.jpg the PD licensing box was already on that page plus a legal warning for nazi symbols, it was just under permission instead of license, where it still is btw, plus it said photographed by me, and the original author was also already on the page, yet you claim that i appropriated others peoples work, that the copyright is disputed on all my uploads, and that i falsified licenses, in other words you acused my of fraud, and you threatend to block me, who's uncivil here?, And all this just because i offended your 2 hero kings with historical cartoons, because everythime i reverted your revert on those 2 pages of those two kings, i got some extra message on my page, and probably those two accounts commenting on this page are the same user with different ip's! LordLiberty (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Adam Harangozó and created claim edits

Adam Harangozó (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

When the last 1,000 edits on our watchlists are 100% QuickStatements from the same user, and these are not marked as minor or bot edits, I believe most folks would call that a spam problem.

Can someone advise Adam, and the rest of us, how to solve this so the solution can be required of everyone using mass QuickStatements. If it is not solvable, then let's ban these mass edits (i.e. simply block Magnus' https://quickstatements.toolforge.org/ from edit rights on Commons) until there is a decent solution for everyone to follow. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy if there is a solution but banning such a useful tool over some annoyance is probably not the way to go. For a starter, what does @Magnus Manske: think? --Adam Harangozó (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

ያሬድ፩፱፯፬፯ copyvio uploader

Uploaded File:Addis ababa anbesa city bus.jpg after final warning.--BevinKacon (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 3 days Gbawden (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

TikTok Actor PremKumar

Clearly only here to self-promote, see abuse filter log and talk page.--BevinKacon (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked him for a week. Uploads are deleted by others. Taivo (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Pictures interchanged

Dear fellow Wikipedians, I just discovered that the links to 2 of my uploaded pictures to <<Wiki Loves Monuments>> have got interchanged and also wrongly labelled. The pictures are File:View of 16 UN Bramhachari Street.svg and File:View of 18A UN Bramhachari Street.svg. Please let me know what I should do to correct them. Thanks in advance...... Cheers..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupamdutta73 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 16 September 2020‎ (UTC)

@Anupamdutta73: I can find no evidence to support your contention. The actual names appear to be File:View of 16 UN Bramhachari Street.jpg and File:View of 18A Bramhachari Street.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear User:Jeff G., The pictures are wrongly labelled... You can clearly see <<16>> written on the pic of 18A UN Brahmachary Street... Anupam Dutta 11:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupamdutta73 (talk • contribs)
You can do that yourself. First you have to correct the description of both files (click on "edit" or "edit source"). Then you have to request the renaming of both files (click on "Move" and follow up the wizard). —— Dodeeric (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Anupamdutta73: Dodeeric is right. Please consider adding "UN" to the photo of 16, and follow COM:SIGN policy.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear @Dodeeric: & @Jeff G.: , As requested, I have corrected the 2 pictures captions, as well as requested for the renaming of the 2 file names separately .... Cheers & thanks bto both of you for guiding me...... Anupam Dutta 15:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Anupamdutta73: Half done. Please link your name to your userpage in your signature per COM:SIGN policy.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hoax

Hi there. Is it possible to do something more practical and immediate about Commons:Deletion requests/User:CevherAlpPalabyk like removing the nonsense expressions from their userpage and a revdel of that page? Many thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by P Cesar Maldonado

I am posting this as I need an uninvolved administrator to assess the following:

The situation is becoming ridiculous and untenable due to P Cesar Maldonado complete failure to understand that Facebook's terms of service is incompatible with Commons' licensing policy, and continues to argue that uploading content on Facebook makes the work "free of copyright". Now, they attempt to argue tone. Originally, I had opened the discussion, rather than processing the speedy deletion, as they had challenged the SD nomination at COM:UDR and to provide an opportunity for P Cesar Maldonado to provide a rationale as to why, per policy, the initial SD nomination was incorrect. After reading and reviewing their responses, I now believe I was mistaken in not processing the SD noms and strongly believe that SD nominations were correct, esp. because P Cesar Maldonado is ardent in their belief that the content that they uploaded are not copyright violations and that the Facebook terms of service somehow makes "free of copyright". As I stated above, I need an uninvolved administrator to assess the discussion and the situation. Whether any action is taken or not, a fresh pair of eyes would be greatly appreciated. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not oppose the situation, if the images must be deleted because they do not really comply with the conditions of free use, I do not make any problem. The conflict is here, that the administrator who intervened is not in the capacity to clearly define and textualize the situation in the clearest possible way to the questions asked [1]. Many users, and I am not referring precisely to me, but not all of us are up to date and totally soaked with the conditions of Commons and other platforms because they are quite a lot and need a lot of reading. But it is annoying and in bad taste that the "administrator" uses bold phrases [2], when Commons itself asks that it not be used COM:TALK, and indirectly uses insults or if they are not to such an extent, at least they offend any user that they treat it that way [3], even in the administrator's message previously using the term "ridiculous". --P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Let's lay the facts out
  1. You claimed own work and that you are the copyright holder in each of the files you've uploaded. That is clearly false and misleading.
  2. You were given the opportunity to clearly note that this was not your own work when uploading
  3. You have warnings on your talk from 2015, 2019 and the beginning of 2020 that clearly points to our policies concerning licensing, copyright rules, and what constitutes as copyright violation.
  4. You were told on multiple occasion in a very short span of time that Facebook's terms of service is not compatible with Commons' licensing policy, and yet you've misconstrued the situation by asking how Commons' policy was not compatible with Facebook's terms.
  5. The use of the bolding was not in contravention to COM:TALK as it states "Don't use a lot of Italic text, Bold text, or CAPITAL LETTERS" -- operative work is a lot which was not the case.
  6. The use of the term ridiculous was in reference to the situation, and was not direct to you as a person. And the situation is absurd if one has to explain over and over again.
  7. Not once did I insult you. If you took offense to anything I wrote, that is on you, not me as I was reiterating basic core policy.
--Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I answer.
  1. Yes, it is my job by editing, but at no time did I say that I was "the photographer", he is putting words in my mouth. Also, accept that the images were original from Facebook [4] I did not deny
  2. I was clear explaining that the Administrator was not clear in her explanation and does not have the capacity to put the cards on the table.
  3. I use bold to "repeat" what supposedly "I did not understand", the approach I use is clearly evident that I am trying to show another feeling.
  4. As an administrator it is not correct in a situation like that to use those terms even if it is for the "situation".
  5. It is inadmissible that I "self-offend", the way to deal with the situation by the administrator is not the correct ethical and moral and with the necessary values.
P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Forget the past. What is your plan going forward? Do you understand that something posted on Facebook is still under the copyright of the creator? Do you understand that you taking the image and posting it here does not make you the copyright holder ("photographer" or not)? These are not vague or confusing concepts or if they are, that's a different problem for you. Competence is required. If not, then we need a block to avoid wasting more time here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Nat: ✓ Done, closed by @Эlcobbola, Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

User:LordLiberty

What is this a troll network? stop your bullying, i did northing wrong! LordLiberty (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@LordLiberty: You have misappropriated the work of others and posted it here as your own. Kindly cease and desist from doing so.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

i did nothing like that, stop your false accusations, and stop your trolling and bullying! LordLiberty (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@LordLiberty: So who designed the poster depicted in File:Belgische Propaganda Poster over Koning Leopold III Met het opschrift "Mijn Lot Zal Het Uwe Zijn" uitgegeven in 1950 in het kader van de Koningskwestie.jpg? Have you read COM:DW?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Stop this trolling NOW! I DID NOT APROPIATE OR FALSIFY ANYTHING, there have been reviews from other users and administrators who told me exactly what to do and how to do it, i made those pictures with my camera from public domain materials, there is nothing wrong with this, i did not claim anything stop this nonsense, you are wasting my time! LordLiberty (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you stop with the uncivil remarks and remove this from your talk page. Also read COM:DW (as pointed out by Jeff) and COM:COPYRIGHT. Just because you make a digital copy by photograph, it doesn't make it your own work. Bidgee (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
FYI this is what I do when I digitise a PD photograph. Bidgee (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I never claimed it as my own you people are doing that, and as for my uncivil remarks, wel try to behave civil and honest yourself first! LordLiberty (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not bullied you. I have used Admin and community approved templates like {{Fcs}}, {{Test2}}, {{End of copyvios}}, and {{Discussion-notice}}. I have reverted none of your legitimate edits. I have vandalised none of your uploads with bogus infoboxes. I have accused you of misappropriation, call that fraud if you want, here is the evidence: look at this very first edit upon your upload of File:Propaganda Poster SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division Langemarck met anti-Semitisch opschrift Samen zullen wij hem verpletteren!.jpg. Do you see the words "Source Own work", "Author Isai Symens", and "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:"? None of that appears to have been true. The same goes for this very first edit upon your upload of File:Propaganda wervings Poster SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division Langemarck met opschrift Vlamingen alle in de SS langemarck.jpg. I have no "royal and Imperial hero kings and emporers". Lest my dear readers think the problems are in the past, the same goes for this very first edit upon your upload of File:Advertising Poster with King Leopold II of the Belgians by designer E. Flasschoen.jpg, less than two hours ago.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Again you are trying to change the subject, and you are trying to decieve everyone with old edits, i already corrected it back then, because other wikipedia users told me about it then already, dont show that single edit, show all the edits since then, i changed it back then already, there was no reason at all, to put a new infobox there at all, you are just mad because i offended your Hero King Leopold II and German Emporer Otto Von Bismarck with historical cartoons, and you want to silence and bully me with false tactics. LordLiberty (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

And if you see to all my uploads, you will see that i always upload it like that, and then change the infobox just after i whent trough the upload wizard process, again you are trying to decieve everyone with false information, stop bullying, stop this deception and stop the trolling! LordLiberty (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@LordLiberty: Please stop uploading like that.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 Comment While it is clear that the user has made some mistakes, what is happening here does begin to cross the line. There is nothing wrong with uploading with the upload wizzard if you immediately change the description. Many users do so, that is not a problem. File:Advertising Poster with King Leopold II of the Belgians by designer E. Flasschoen.jpg has been corrected within minutes of uploading by he user themselves. It is highly inappropriate to characterise this as anything remotely similar to the copyright infringement. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 07:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you: @〠 LordLiberty (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: This is not about descriptions, it's about sources, authors, dates, and licenses required by policy COM:EVID. Also, their upload Comments "Uploaded own work with UploadWizard" are disingenuous.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I do not use Upload Wizzard to upload files, and therefore perhaps I am mistaken, but I have assumed that this comment is not added by the user, but rather it is added automatically. In addition to that, when a user makes a mistake and corrects it within minutes we cannot claim that this is a form of copyright violation. Let's say that I was the author of some work, and the user has uploaded it as {{own}} and then in several minutes has changed the file description page to reflect me as the author; let us then imagine that I go and file a case for violation of copyright/licence/moral rights. I am pretty sure that in that case the court would probably not even allow me to take it to trial, and would dismiss such a case. I wouldn't be too surprised if after such an incident I would be be penalised by being disallowed to file court cases without some sort of prior approval for some period of time. Should we have an option in the Upload Wizzard that says "Just upload the file, I will edit the description myself", which would upload the file with the comment "Uploaded a file with unknown status with Upload Wizzard"? I say we should. @LordLiberty: Please visit my user page, on the right you will see a set of links, one of them is for upload page that simply lets you put your own wikitext in one field, without all the nonsense that Upload Wizzard does. I will suggest that you switch to use such a method if you enjoy editing wikitext and do not like answering tons of separate questions, that are asked by Upload Wizzard. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 09:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Propaganda_Poster_SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division_Langemarck_met_anti-Semitisch_opschrift_Samen_zullen_wij_hem_verpletteren!.jpg&diff=408114656&oldid=406886123 edit on March 30, why dont you show this edit? i already changed the info back then, no you show the very first edit, then the others you dont show, u are the fraud trying to decieve people with fake information, shame on you! you should be blocked for this! LordLiberty (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The only one behaving uncivilly is you (LordLiberty), if you keep it up, you will get blocked for disruptive and uncivil behaviour. I suggest that cease the uncivil comments. Just a friendly tip; In the UploadWizard you can use other options to the upload(s), since the license I use isn't available, so in Release rights part of the UploadWizard, I click on "This file is not my own work" (add the source and author [something similar in the example above I gave]) and when it comes to the license (on the same page) I click on "Another reason not mentioned above" (you can add the correct license template in this section). Bidgee (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that's how you keep power on this platform isnet it, with bully and troll tactics, trol networks chase eveybody of here they dont agree with, read the news about wikipedia, its full with stories like this, you accuse people with false and fake information, and you bully and troll them, i just call it out for what it is, that is not uncivil, you people on the other hand bully, trol, accuse and falsify information, and that is very uncivil. LordLiberty (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not bullying you, nor trolling. I have tried to help you on a better way of uploading, at the end of the day it is up to you if you follow the advice or not. I don't have any "power" on this project or any other project for that matter. Honestly I give up trying to help you. Bidgee (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The user also uploaded File:Belgian Congo.jpg without specifying an actual source in the "Source" field (like in many of their other uploads, "source=Scanned by [[User:LordLiberty|Isai Symens]]" is insufficient) or an actual author in the "Author" field so that PD status could be verified, all in violation of policy COM:EVID, and has made personal attacks in this section and the one which follows. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Scanned by Isai Symens", which the user vandalized twice; and the listed files, from which the user removed delete templates.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

You are starting to behave like a real stalker now, STOP IT! go and do something usefull with your time, and stop this trolling! LordLiberty (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Stop removing stuff you aren't allowed to remove.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked LordLiberty for one week for his disrupting edits at a deletion request: [7], [8] --AFBorchert (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

In response to the block a discussion followed at my de:wp talk page. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Spam

Company spam accounts.--BevinKacon (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Scrappy1941 and vandalism

Scrappy1941's only edit is to create File:Poop ass fat gross.png. The file itself isn't vandalism, but the associated text on the page and name is. The image might be a copyright violation (it seems to be something used in a school. Couldn't find it on google reverse search though), but is otherwise not a problem from what I can see. Said user is blocked for sockpuppetry and legal threats on enwiki. One of these sockpuppets, Scrappy1961, has edited here too. Would an admin/editor deal with the situation as appropriate as I am unsure of how to deal with this situation / if the file is a copyright violation. I've notified the users. Apologies if this is the wrong place. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Chechbot

Username indicates a Bot but seems to be a real user. Should be forced to rename. --Denniss (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. -- CptViraj (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

LTA

Please see contributions of CatchThyCaptchaOrDIE (talk · contribs), semi-protect User:Rodhullandemu/Featured Content & User:Rodhullandemu/ToDo and revdel contributions. That's the sort of shit I've had to put up with for nine years because the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee couldn't even be bothered to follow their own policy. Enough is enough. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. -- CptViraj (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Martin wolf

User keeps uploading images he finds on the internet, marking them as pd in some form (often PD-Czechoslovakia-anon) without providing any proof. In many cases, those pictures are likely still copyrighted. If a File is marked with a copyvio or a Deletion requests tag, he'll just remove it (e.g. File:Jaroslav Stockar (1890-1977).jpg, File:Gustav Stumpf (1880-1982).jpg or File:Jaroslav Vondrák(1881-1937).jpg) Unfortunately, I do not speak Czech, so I can't really communicate with him. --Andel (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

User:UeArtemis

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%D0%9B%D1%96%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8B_%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%96%D1%86%D1%8B.svg&diff=453075864&oldid=453050735195.114.146.150 09:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Ok, you have left the exact same message on Commons:Village_pump#Racism_on_Wiki!!!! I guess that you have read only a portion of the discussion. Racism on this project is a very serious issue, but for the racism on this project to become a serious issue you need to have racism on this project. It is good to be observant, so take a look at UeArtemis's contributions, and if there is racism there, then definitely do bring it up, but bringing up accusation of racism and saying that it is racism is... ridiculous, it actually deminishes what racism means and normalises it. If everybody is accused of being racist, then racists will be able hide in the crowd. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 09:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Hi again, an anonymous Wikipædian! The link is quite self-explaining: the matter is just the edition: OK, UeArtemis made a racist "joke" at the other site and we may not consider it, but what he has said on wiki is racism, because he hasn't said "Sorry: I was an idiot that time but I don't think so and don't make so idiotic 'jokes' now!". He even doesn't understand what is the problem!!!! User:Gone_Postal are you trying to say that such a phrase "Are we N-word slaves or white planters? Whom will you be, sirs?" by UeArtemis is not racism!??? Either you are joking(not funny) or you are a racist too... Yes, only bureaucratically we say that wiki-user UeArtemis is not a racist because it was not racism on wiki, but the edition is the racism by the wiki-user UeArtemis on wiki because wiki-user UeArtemis has accepted that there were his words and said just "ha-ha-ha: an old good joke". User:Gone_Postal, it is a joke Are we N-word slaves or white planters? Whom will you be, sirs?, what dou you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.114.146.150 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
      • 195, If you are requesting administrator action, you need to be less shouty, stop forum shopping, and be concise with the evidence. If someone is misusing talk pages to create a hostile environment, that can be used as a block rationale (see COM:BP), but the evidence needs to be easy to understand and brief. The evidence here is muddied with off-project issues and indirect language.
      • Frankly, though IPs can contribute they have less weight in discussion, votes or requests than named accounts. It is more "anonymous" to create an account and use it to edit, it does not take a technical genius to learn quite a lot from a public IP address, or even a series of them. --Fæ (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
        • As I see, N-word 'jokes' is not a problem for Wikipædians... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.114.146.150 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 11 September 2020‎ (UTC)
          • The advice is genuine. Keep it short. Stick to simple diffs rather than re-quoting everything. Use a COM:BP specific "hostile environment" rationale rather than alleging anyone is a racist. Also, layoff with the html tags, it makes any complaint look less serious. --Fæ (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
            • I have already understood the wiki-policy: markup is VERY serious crime but N-word is normal for Wikipædians. So good advices! Try to use them yourself and tell other Wikipædians!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎195.114.146.150 (talk • contribs)
            • <<they have less weight in discussion, votes or requests than named accounts>>Because Wikipædians are racists, aren't they? :All participants are æqual but some participants are more æqual... <<have less weight>> means if you are not 'Wikipæpish' your words means nothing to whom is 'Wikipæpish'. Who is 'Wikipæpish' decides who is 'Wikipæpish'. Is it not racism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.114.146.150 (talk • contribs)
  • The only thing I can see what User:UeArtemis said was "What? White masters? LOL.--UeArtemis (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)", it was you that brought up something they allegedly said in the past on a different project back in 2011, which is when they replied. Bidgee (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    • This is Marat Gubayev (Gubaiev) who is banned for stalking me.--UeArtemis (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Does it mean that what you have said became less racistic because I (let's assume) have such a username, such an IP, and I have voted (let's assume) for such a candidate in Præsitendial elections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.114.146.150 (talk • contribs)
    • The point is that UeArtemis even doesn't understand what is the problem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.114.146.150 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 11 September 2020‎ (UTC)
      • They never used the word you suggested they used, you stated it on their talk page, something an off wiki site allegedly on another wiki project back in 2011. Bidgee (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
        • One again, my racist-friendly anonymous little Wikipædians. I have remembered UeArtemis his saying "if we wanted to be 'white people' we should pronounce "th" as [f]"(c). UeArtemis has said "What? White masters? LOL.". Then I have found exact UeArtemis' quotation "Ми ніґери-раби чи білі плантатори? :) Ким хочете бути ви, панове? :)(Are we N-word(!) slaves or white planters? Whom will you be, sirs?)". UeArtemis have answered "Oh, an old joke of 2011 is definitely applies to this discussion.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.114.146.150 (talk • contribs)
        • The incorrect joke about th-fronting was said outside Wikipedia projects - in the Lingvoforum (a linguistic forum). Mr. Gubayev is trying to "cancel" me.--UeArtemis (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
        • You see: it was a saying by UeArtemis and UeArtemis accepts it. I don't think that the same person could be a racist outside wiki but not a racists inside. Little anonymous Wikipædians think that he could. OK, let's assume. But UeArtemis' reaction on it was exactly on wiki: UeArtemis doesn't see anything bad in such 'jokes'! Because he as a Wikipædian and other Wikipædians protect him on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.114.146.150 (talk • contribs)
        • UeArtemis has a number of such "incorrect jokes"(tm) as on wiki as outside. E.g. UeArtemis likes very much to joke about Stalin terror, especially about Stalin terror against Ukrainian language itself. Yes, I want to 'cancel' him in any sense. E.g. I have sent a notification about the issue to such addresses donate@wikimedia.org, info@wikimedia.org, legal@wikimedia.org, business@wikimedia.org, awilliams@wikimedia.org, amuigai@wikimedia.org, benefactors@wikimedia.org, accessibility@wikimedia.org, matching@wikimedia.org, press@wikimedia.org infoseva@alz.org, lindsay.hansen@capitalone.com, fgc@fgc.ca.gov, m.bickert@fb.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.114.146.150 (talk • contribs)
          mini
          mini


195.114.144.0/20

Seem 195.114.147.191 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (and now 195.114.146.150 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) ) has been hounding[9], [10], [11] UeArtemis (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  to the point that the usertalk page had to be protected by User:Achim55. Looks like the IP is bring a dispute from another project here and making the environment for UeArtemis uncomfortable. Bidgee (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  • So you think that environment for a racist should be comfortable(but markup is a VERY serious crime). I had no doubts in fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.114.146.150 (talk • contribs)
  • Please note that nobody has accused you of any crimes. Markup makes your edits appear comedic. In fact if I were racist, I would seriously consider asking (or paying) a friend of mine to come in and begin acting in the way you act; this can potentially create an atmosphere where anti-racism is seen as disruptive and a joke. So please ask yourself, if you are really anti-racist why are you doing something which has the potential to be of great benefit to racists? You have been told that if you can povide a statement that is made by another user that harrasses somebody on this project because of their ethnic background (or for that matter because of their national origin, native language, personal religious/spiritual beliefs, family status, sexuality, etc) then by all means you should bring that up. You are not doing that, rather than that you are experimenting with the creative use of the red-coloured fonts. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 13:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for one week. The user should become more familiar with Wikimedia Commons policies before continueing to participate in discussions. Ankry (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I would actually  Support lowering the block to 2-3 days. The desire to fight perceived racism is a positive one, and the user (even if they are anonymous, they are still a user) has gone a little over-excited. Unless of course this is not the first time they have behaved this way. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 16:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I do not oppose. If another admin wishes to change the block, feel free to do so. Ankry (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

195.114.144.0/20 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  dumped more crap on this page.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Seveleu-Dubrovnik: SYSTEMATICAL FALSIFYING OF ALPHABETS

(just for case: I think it's much more important that ordinary spam or obvious vandalising, that's why caps-lock)

You can see here[12] that he in fact admitted definitely not by his free will that he was disinformating number of wikis by his pseudoarabic chart!

See also the discussion: there are number of the legal issues. Note that he tried to remove the evidences[13] to falsify the deletion request which is referring to the discusion. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.114.148.115 (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2020‎ (UTC)


PS

Dear Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker! Why are you trying to delete this topic[14]!??? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.114.148.115 (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2020‎ (UTC)

Hello 195.114.148.115. You are required to notify users when you start a discussion about them here, which I have now done for you. I do not see any violations of Commons policy or guidelines here, nor do I see any need for administrator action at this time. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear AntiCompositeNumber! Thanks. Read please the dicussion carefully: as I have said it is neither ordinary spam nor obvious vandalising: try to think!
Just FYI: See this discussion. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker Overleg • CA 17:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker! Thank you a lot. Could you explain the relation of that discussion to this topic? Try to think! Thanks.
I see 2 relation ships between this discussion and the other one: You're longer active here and you're trying to push your point of view because you're disagreed about something. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker Overleg • CA 17:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Try again! Thanks. Note that I provide proofs but you provide guesses. I don't need your guesses. Thanks.
Dear Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker! FYI 195.114.144.0/20 is the set of IPs of a provider. So any user of that provider could have such IPs becase they are changed dynamically. Thank you for understanding. (and for trying to think in advance)


ONCE AGAIN

User:Seveleu-Dubrovnik was propagating his own orthography falsifying wiki-articles. I'm not sure that this is not a violations of Commons policy and guidelines...



Thanks.

Disruption

This user is clearly IP hopping to get around blocks

  1. 195.114.145.162 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log
  2. 195.114.146.14 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log
  3. 195.114.146.144 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log
  4. 195.114.146.150 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log
  5. ‎195.114.146.16 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log
  6. 195.114.146.161 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log
  7. 195.114.146.232 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log
  8. ‎195.114.146.43 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log
  9. 195.114.146.87 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log
  10. ‎195.114.147.191 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log
  11. 195.114.147.75 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log
  12. 195.114.148.115 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log
  13. ‎195.114.148.206 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log
  14. 195.114.148.93 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log

Does this warrant a rangeblock to prevent disruption? I've not read the full story.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

IMO, yes. It's not just this thread, but also this one (further above on this page). --Túrelio (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I think a rangeblock is warranted. See also #195.114.144.0/20 above and COM:ANV#195.114.144.0/20.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
✓ Blocked for 2 weeks. -- CptViraj (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@CptViraj: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@CptViraj: I am afraid, this user would need more time for becoming familiar with wiki rules and policies. Maybe, next time, a longer block but limitted to the 3 namespaces of their activity? (hopefully, this will not be needed) Ankry (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I hope that too, but if it is needed then ya, we can do what you said. -- CptViraj (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Question

If an abuse filter is needed, I think the next source will prevent edits by this user: 

ip_in_range(user_name, "195.114.144.0/20") &
(
 page_namespace = 6 |
 page_namespace = 7
) &
(
 page_prefixedtitle = "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard" |
 page_prefixedtitle = "Commons talk:Administrators' noticeboard"
)

I honestly don't know what the administrators think about this, but please go to my talk page or ping me with {{ping|Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker}} if you have comments.

Greetings: Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker Overleg • CA 09:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

We have COM:Partial blocks feature. -- CptViraj (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I know we have this feature, but a partial block means the administrators need to decline unblock requests and you're at the risk you need to revoke the talk page access if it's necessary. Revoking talk page access means the user cannot talk with other users, and when the user is expected to respond questions or comments placed by other users they can't do it. With an abuse filter you can mainly prevent unblock requests, but I know it means you need to revert the edits when the user is very uncivil. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker Overleg • CA 10:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Gordito1869: user page and user talk page

While working in the German Wikipedia on articles about the family of Plessen I first came across discussion posts of the user w:de:user:Gordito1869 who was blocked indefinitely because of personal attacks, and then the user of the same name user:Gordito1869 here. I wonder if large parts of the user page and the user talk page are in compliance with the project scope (Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories#User pages, galleries and categories) for the following reasons:

  1. The usage of some files and other private documents which were deleted (Löschung von PDFs) was always restricted on links (or inclusions) to the user page or user talk page of the uploader.
  2. On these pages Gordito1869 argues against living members of the Plessen family by using the private family papers as supposed evidence.
  3. The user page starts with an important notice in German with links to some of the private papers mentioned. A raw translation in English:
    IMPORTANT NOTICE : For the absolute truthfulness of ALL of my statements on this/ my User Page & on my User Discussion Page, I hereby - by name - give an affidavit. - If you have even the slightest doubt about my (truthful) statements, please contact me personally under my guestbook or under my +++ postal address +++. - I will/would send him/her - at my expense - a copy (to a reasonable extent) of the desired documents, letters & if applicable documents, which might give reason for reasonable doubt (these doubts would have to be explained (if applicable) in my guestbook or via letter; if the doubts should concern a true & selfless nobleman from the noble knight's family, he/she should be asked beforehand (!) according to "Audiatur et altera pars". --- I see myself absolutely and imperatively committed to the TRUTH and the REPUTATION & the HONOR of my own family & that of my bodily ancestors. - signed. Michael Josef Pfeiffer, Cologne, 09.08.2020 Gordito1869 (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    --- --- --- PS : By the way, it is strongly recommended to send various (in my opinion important) documents, certificates & records - like this one +++ invoice to a completely unauthorized (!) THIRD party +++ vs. the +++ legal (!) claims of the exclusive (!) authorized (!) parties +++ - prompt (! ) and on the occasion of the next family day of all Plessen (-57 member) attached to the federation and to present at present still current chairman of the family federation, USER:Christian von Plessen, with the request around decided DARLING of the factual and legal situation to the time-honored Plessengut DOLGEN of page 771 (progenitor to Dolgen : Leopold Engelke baron von Plessen). --- With family & friendly greetings you/your Michael J. Pfeiffer, legitimate grandson of Leopold Freiherr von Plessen zu Dolgen (see below in the extensive text about the factual and legal situation regarding Dolgen & his +++ ENEMIES +++ (!) within the family von Plessen) - Gordito1869 (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. In the German Wikipedia links to the user talk page ([15]) have been used by an IP address for link spam recently ([16]). However, the linked section doesn't contain useful information but links and strange statements in German like (raw translation):
    Order of the Temple --- --- --- Helmold, tell ME the truth, were YOU a Templar ? -Your disc knob of the sword with Templar cross, -Your armour from the 13th century, -Your pilgrimages to Jerusalem, -The dissolution of the Order of the Temple a. D. 1312 ... admit it, Helmold : YOU WERE A TEMPLER ! - (This fills me with awe & family pride - by virtue of YOUR blood in +++ MY veins +++, Helmoldus !!!)
    Note : Thank God, the former mayor of Schleswig, Dr. Arthur Christiansen, personally took over the sponsorship for the venerable knight Helmold III. von Plessen-Fenster in the cathedral of Schleswig in June 2020 (Knight Helmold III. von Plessen was a member of the Order of the Brothers of the Sword in Livonia). --- Dr. Arthur Christiansen - Quote : "With my first name, of course, only the Ritter-Fenster came into question." (end of quote). --- The splendid knight Helmold III. von Plessen window (right in the picture - with Plessen coat of arms) was donated by the first district administrator of Schleswig Hugo von Plessen. --- "Long live OUR sword brother Helmold III, long live great uncle HUGO !!!".

--ThT (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Mir sind aus meiner 11-jährigen - imho sehr validen - Commons-Arbeit und aus meiner langjährigen de.wp Tätigkeit (158 erstellte Artikel) keinerlei Probleme mit Ihnen bekannt. Falls Sie persönliche Probleme mit mir und/oder mit meiner Commons-Arbeit haben sollten, können Sie mich jederzeit auf meiner DORTIGEN Disk. ansprechen; für positive und/oder negative Kritik bin ich DORT (!) : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gordito1869#Mein_G%C3%A4stebuch_: erklärtermaßen zugänglich und ggf. diskussionswillig. MfG Gordito1869 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
--- Nach meinem Urlaub wollte ich meine beiden User-Seiten aber ohnehin gründlich "entrümpeln" und mich fortan WIEDER auf reinen - uneigennützigen - COMMONS-Bilderdienst konzentrieren; ich hoffe sehr, dass mir diese halbe Woche nach 11-jähriger tadelloser und absolut vandalismusfreier (!) Zeit zugestanden wird, User ThT (?). MfG aus Brendene/Belgien : Gordito1869 (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
--- PS: Obwohl ich mit User ThT keinerlei Probleme habe und jemals hatte, ist er nun unter Commons öffentlich auf der Suche nach Usern, die seine Löschvoten vs. meine Uploads unterstützen sollen : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oursana#Violation_of_privacy_by_publication_of_private_addresses_and_other_private_data - ferner wird mir dort wahrheitswidrig unterstellt, die in der Lösch-Disk. befindlichen historischen Dokumente seien "nur für eine Privatfehde" vor ca. 11-Jahren hochgeladen worden. - Entsprechen dieses unprovozierte Verhalten und insbes. die bösgläubigen und wahrheitswidrigen Unterstellungen bei unbeteiligten Usern vs. langjährige COMMONS-User der hiesigen Wikiquette, verehrte Administratoren ? MfG Gordito1869 (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately Gordito1869 seems to misunderstand my project oriented activities as an attack on personal reasons although I tried to explain the disturbing effects of the links to his uploaded material and his texts for the article work in the German Wikipedia regarding the history of the Plessen family. Now he calls me "Denunziant" (Denunciator, used in German with a pejorative meaning [17]) and forbids me to use his talk page ([18]). On the other hand he describes a family dispute about real estate of the Plessen family ([19]) which in my view is not of historic interest and thus I consider the private family papers of no educational purpose. I am willing to discuss any problem on an objective level anytime, but I ask to be protected from insults and unproven accusations. --ThT (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no problems with you and I wish to have no problems with you - and there is no reason for me, to discuss any matters with you. - Please, let me do my Commons-work. - Gordito1869 (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Aadilashahid94

Hi.Please have a look at User:Aadilashahid94's edits; I tried to communicate with her but in vain. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Does44 and User:PapworthC

Copyvio and sock issues. Does44 uploaded File:Grieves-V2.jpg, which was later deleted as a copyright violation. Does44's undeletion request was declined, but soon after that, another account PapworthC uploaded the identical image File:Grieves.Green - Copy.jpg. May an administrator block them? Thank you, 124.84.30.250 06:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked both accounts. All this happened after Does44 acknowledged that we cannot accept the upload of copyvios and that permissions have to go through COM:OTRS. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I've now unblocked Does44 per this request. The PapworthC sock remains blocked. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Spambot

Spambot.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Likely spambot.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked both indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Akhthewolfaa

Keeps uploading copyvio images after warning. Please have a look.--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 06:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week and deleted his/her last remaining uploads. Taivo (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Taiwankengo

In the past seven months, I've said so many times on his talk page, don't use the category "Flickr files uploaded by Kai3952" and pretend to be me uploading this Flickr file: "File:View through trees to Xinwei Village (cropped).jpg". I don’t believe he will not see all my messages because during that time I used many different ways to tell him about he pretend to be me uploading the Flickr file. As I viewed his behavior in his contributions, however, I realized that he only cares about what he wants to do. If he may have misunderstood the category "Flickr files uploaded by Kai3952" then he should not ignore me like this. In this case, I think it has become clear that he was deliberately ignoring me. I would like User:Taiwankengo to stop pretend to be me uploading the Flickr file, so I'll have to ask an admin for help.--Kai3952 (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I think that this is a case of trivial misunderstanding. This cateory is added by CropTool, the original file has been uploaded by you, this user then created a crop of that file, and CropTool simply copied all the categories from the original. This is not the case where the category is added maliciously, and it is trivial to remove. I am not an admin, and I have done it just now. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 16:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Seconding Gone_Postal, although I understand Kai3952’s frustration well. Additionally this is another necessary clean up operation after CropTool: The source of the new, cropped image is the image it was cropped from, not the latter’s original file from elsewhere. And, unlike categorization, this is the kind of clean up CropTool should be able to do automaticly. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Emails, emails emails . . . . . . . . . . . . many 1000s caused by Bots

Over recent weeks I have been receiving emails at daily rates between 100 and 400. I was away for part of a day that's how I know the count can get up that high. All these emails come from Commons because several editors have bots working away doing things to files. I have made more than 100,000 edits to files on Commons and no doubt have done my own share of bothering others with the apparently unavoidable emails.

The owners of the bots tell me switch off my email advices. Fine then I know nothing about what's being done to files I have a personal interest in.

Why don't they just switch off the bit of their bot that does the damage to my inbox and no doubt inboxes of others. Is their job to last only a little longer or can I expect 100,000 emails straggling in for years to come.

Or can a solution be found? If I knew a way to hurt bots I'd be using it. Eddaido (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eddaido: You can temporarily opt in for a daily summary instead. --Minoraxtalk 13:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Ideally, there should be an option for that (excluding bots from watchlist notifications). It's been requested here, but you can also create a filter for that. If you're using Gmail, this can be done from the "Filters and Blocked Addresses" tab in the settings. You can create a filter to delete (or archive) every email from Commons containing the username of the bot.
Bot owners can't really switch their bots off for this reason. To effectively reduce the number of emails in your inbox, they should considerably limit their bots, which will ultimately cause the task to take much longer. BotMultichillT, for example, is making thousands of edits every day. If they limit it to, say, 100 edits per day, it will take forever to finish the task. In addition, this account is flagged as a bot, and one of the reasons why we flag bot accounts is that we don't want their edits to flood the recent changes, the watchlist etc. The fact that the bot flag does not affect watchlist notifications should be addressed appropriately, and the bot owner is not, necessarily, the one who can/should address it. For now, I think the best course of action is to create a filter that automatically deletes all such emails. Ahmadtalk 13:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, after much trial and error I have built a little filter in my Apple Mail which works! How can I help get the anti flooding device sorted? (I find it quite difficult enough to drive a keyboard so I can't do much more than understand that there is this problem). Eddaido (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
This is a perfectly valid complaint about unwanted bot behaviour. Users should not be required to treat our bot tasks as spam bots, and be forced to add their own email filters.
The burden should be on the bot operators to have a way of switching off notifications for their bot actions. If this is not available based on bot flags, then this is an action to raise on Phabricator. --Fæ (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm following this discussion. I just mark and delete the emails but I guess other people are getting thousands.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Eddaido: You have my sympathies. While I do not receive emails for these changes, my watchlist is at times flooded by myriads of entries generated by bots in short time. I observed an editing speed of up to 35 edits per minute just on photographs uploaded by me. See User talk:Multichill#Editing speed of BotMultichill for the related discussion. However, I do not think that this discussion belongs to COM:AN/U. We need a general discussion at one of the village pumps about the cohabitation of bots and humans at Commons. While there is a consensus to have these edits and not to wait overly long until they are completed, it might be helpful to organize them a way not to overburden individual users. Filtering is not a general solution to this problem because there is still a legitimate interest to verify at least selected edits. Bots are not without fault. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Attack page at Commons

Hi there. Can one of you please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rodrigo Legarreta (el Luis Miguel latino).jpg ASAP? The user who uploaded an attack page is now nervous altering both the file and the DR that they themselves opened. They could also use a good admin warning as our voices as common Commoners do not come out so strong. --E4024 (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

DR closed, image deleted and uploader warned. Far worse was the mess this user created on Commons:Deletion requests/2020/09/25, which Jeff G. luckily could get rid of. --Túrelio (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

User:かんがくたろう

Incessant copyvio issues. He immediately have need to stop uploading the files.--Categorizing (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user. If this does not help, then (s)he should be blocked. Taivo (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. This did not help. Now I blocked the user for a month. Taivo (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Use of Advertising logos

User:Aurelio de Sandoval uses advertising logos in his signatureː Aurelio de Sandoval (talk). Is this permitted? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Using images in signature is not allowed. Taivo (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Toadboy123 uploading non-free images

I noticed a non-free YouTube screenshot from this user on Wikipedia a while back and put it through the deletion process here, giving them the normal automatic notification. I recently saw them insert the image again, and looking at their user talk page, it's all license warnings that they have apparently not heeded. Sdkb (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. The two files, despite name, are different. Thank you for nominating it for deletion! I warned Toadboy and even deleted one of his uploads speedily. Taivo (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Vitaliyf261

Please block user Vitaliyf261 for repeat copyvio uploads after warning. Thanks. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him for a month. Also I deleted 2 his uploads speedily and nominated 1 for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

MaxxL

The matter was raised here before but got archived without any admin apport to it (at the same time several admins were busy pillorying Tm for comparatively lesser offenses, if any), but the matter remains unresolved and the user in question is not only left not admin-warned about their conduct but also with the impression they’re in the right, due to the admin-ignored complaint by Evrik. To be clear: This user

  • has been ignoring COM:OVERWRITE across many, highly reused files,
  • refuses to upload the new images anew instead of overwriting,
  • insists on the legitimacy of this course of action,
  • confirms that this has been their usual practice for years,
  • and seems to be one among several users doing so.

This needs admin-sponsored analysis that may lead to massive file clean-up (with reversions and new uploads), warning and guidance of the envolved editors, and even maybe some cross-project outreach concerning editorial practices affecting Commons file reuse. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  • @Jeff G.: What ever for? What’s needed here is admin action, not a rehash of MaxxL’s own misinformed arguments about how overwriting files with different images is a good thing, or how accuracy of heraldry images hosted in Commons should be discussed in the German Wikipedia, or indeed that none of us should be even discussing this because only he and his pals know any Heraldry. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@Tuválkin: To forestall defenses such as "no one warned me" and "no one notified me", and responses of "I warned them" .   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Pablo723

Please, delete all files uploaded by Pablo723 and block the account. It's another puppet of Milanopablojavier24. See: all the identified puppets and its recent contributions. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 19:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Spam accounts

Accounts re-uploading same spam images.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. The first user hasn't uploaded anything after 11th of September. He was warned and that's enough. The second user did not stop after warning and I blocked him indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yslander

Please occult the edit resume because he's insulting and harrasing me from Spanish Wikipedia (blocked). Taichi (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

That is totally untrue. I have written to him explaining my situation and asking for his help and he has deleted my message and accused me of "accusing him". It is an absolute lack of education. For my part I will never write to him again. Yslander (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
En Commons también hay administradores hispanohablantes como Ezarate o Strakhov y verán el resumen de edición inaceptable que me has colgado. Da igual si no quieres hablarme más, pero tu comportamiento en ese diff rompe toda norma. Taichi (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Me has dicho que te acoso y has borrado mi mensaje en el que en ningún momento te he hablado mal. En el resumen te he dicho poco para lo que pienso de ti. Tú solo te has retratado. No sé como una persona tan arbitraria puede revisar desbloqueos. ¿Encima de bloquearme sin motivo alguno tengo que reirte las gracias? En fin, lo dicho. Yslander (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Per [20] Yslander = Lopezsuarez, both accounts are actives here, this edit resume is unacceptable, so I block both accounts a week Ezarateesteban 14:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

PD:Edit resume is hide now Ezarateesteban 14:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Problems with new user adding inferior .svg files across Wikimedia

I'm having problems with user:Cookieman1.1.1 who is creating .svg files and adding them to articles in English and Spanish wikipedia.

However, the images, except for about 1 have not met a certain threshold of correctness.

See this file I tried to put together. i have been dealing with this since August 28, 2020.

Most of the images he's creating, I've had to remove from articles because of problems which I've tried to communicate to him. At first, he was updated the images, now our relationship has broken down. I've invited him to work with others on the Puerto Rico Project team.

Today he reverrted on Quedbradillas, Puerto Rico in en-Wikipedia removing a flag that is exactly like the one he created. (both .svgs)

an existing .svg file created by CarlosArturoAcosta in March, 2020 is on wikidata and other wikis

replaced with almost an exact replica.

created by Cookieman1.1.1's .svg file recently

. But why? Cookieman is also recreating other .svg files that already exist, created by user:CarlosArturoAcosta as seen here just to replace the similar file on wikipedia with his version of same.

Orocovis by CarlosArturoAcosta, is a perfectly find .svg that doesn't need to be replacedactually an incorrect version

by same flag

Cookieman1.1.1. replacement of same

. The existing flag since March, 2020 is already in use in multiple wikipedia projects so I'm not sure why he would replace an existing perfectly good .svg with his .svg of same. The spirit of the project is to replace .jpg / .png etc with .svg. Not to replace perfectly good .svg s with new .svgs . I'm completely confused with what this user is doing.

I need help because I can not quantify how many hours and days I have wasted trying to ensure that incorrect images don't get pasted to the aritcles. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@The Eloquent Peasant: The flag of Orocovis made by CarlosArturoAcosta isn't perfectly fine, the star and colours are not quite right. I didn't replace it for my own well being, i replaced it because it was wrong none the less. We have agreed to settle this with others with WikiProject:Puerto Rico/symbols to do a vetting of which should be which. You told me to be a perfectionist and that is what i am attempting to do. Happy editing! --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@The Eloquent Peasant and Cookieman1.1.1: : First, sorry to my English, it is not my native language. In the images uploaded by me, if the flag have not a official description, I try to use the colors of the Spanish Wikipedia flag's convention. Cookieman1.1.1 can upload all images that he want, but, why did not he change or upload a new and best version of the images? Are Cookieman1.1.1's source official documents? and if Cookieman1.1.1's source are official documents, do they have colors specifications? If there is not an official colors identification (RGB, CMYK, Pantone...), my flags versions are valid (also the Cookieman1.1.1's flags version are valid), and if exist a valid version of the flags, why upload a new version?. I am not agree or disagree with upload more images (or any kind of files) to make Wikipedia better but I think that if exists a good resource to improve an article, I do not need upload a new file. Lastly, I hope that you understand what I wrote. CarlosArturoAcosta (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@CarlosArturoAcosta: I understand everything you say. We have a variety of sources. I created a page for the Puerto Rico symbols project and it has background on sources - you can join us there too! Each image has to be looked at individually. I appreciate that you take care. I appreciate that you make changes to images when I give you feedback, i.e. The Río Grande images. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @The Eloquent Peasant, CarlosArturoAcosta, and Cookieman1.1.1: Please move this discussion to where it belongs. This here is Wikimedia Commons, the repository where all these flag images are stored. Here in Commons there has been no replacement of these images (which would be a serious matter to be discussed here), merely the upload of new media files (with distinct filenames and hosted on separate filepages) with the same purported semantics. That’s totally acceptable for us here (even wrong flag images can be used to document wrong claims or common mistakes); (any language) Wikipedia editors are supposed to pick one of possibly several similar images from Commons an use it in articles as needed: If there’s disagreement over which image to use in any article, discuss the matter in that article’s talk page (or other such venue, as mentioned above). Discussions like this belong in Commons only when a media file is overwritten (not the case here, but yes elsewhere) or when there are grounds for a file deletion (which, again, doesn’t seem to be the case). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Tuvalkin: This is 1 of the problems I was having with user. The non-free (correct file / image) was on the en-Wiki article as a non-free image but was deleted for non-use. This happened after the user added his .svg to the article and before I realized what was happening. Thank you for your time. We got this. Feel free to archive this, if that's what happens on this space. Good night.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @The Eloquent Peasant: Indeed: Uploading locally images that meet the COM:L creteria is a disservice to all envolved: Not only it risks being deleted if not in use, as reported, but also it is usable only in the local project, while if uploaded to Commons it could be used by all projects. @Explicit: Flag images are usually not «non-free»; instead of deleting please consider marking files like this with en:Template:mtc. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Tuvalkin: Some of CarlosArturoAcosta 's media files are being overwritten, against Commons guidelines, by Cookieman1.1.1 (and Niko3818). 1) File:Flag of Trujillo Alto.svg and 2) File:Coat of arms of Trujillo Alto.svg and there may be others. Maybe they just didn't know the guideline. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Adbh266 overwriting files contrary to COM:OVERWRITE (redirected talk page; app user)

Adbh266 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user has a long run of overwriting files with completely different ones. The files are generally ones with highly generic names, so I wonder if this is because Adbh266 doesn't get any notification when they try to overwrite a file. All the uploads in question are tagged "Mobile edit, Mobile app edit, Android app edit".

Here's a list of improperly overwritten files: File:Tea cup.jpg, File:Decorative flowers.jpg, File:Aquarium.jpg, File:Trees.jpg, File:Sunset view.jpg, File:Elephant idol.jpg, File:Mouse.jpg, File:Masjid.jpg, File:Pond.jpg, File:Walkie Talkie.jpg, File:Peacock.jpg, File:Cave.jpg, File:Tombs.jpg, File:Sacred Tree.jpg, File:Grasshopper.jpg, File:Ostrich Egg.jpg, File:Clock.jpg, File:TV Tower.jpg. I've reverted all of these.

I asked Adbh266 not to do this twice: [21], [22]. However there is a complication. User talk:Adbh266 is a redirect to User talk:Adithya pakide, and the latter is where all the notifications have been left. I wonder if this means that Adbh266 has not been receiving notifications of new messages. Adbh266 renamed the page themselves due to technical issues last year, which makes me reluctant to move it back. I hope I can leave this in the capable hands of our administrators, since I'm at a bit of a loss what to do next. --bjh21 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Bjh21: I've renamed the user page, talk page  can't due to this. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker Overleg • CA 16:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I merged both talk pages and moved it back to User talk:Adbh266. --Achim (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done: I left a note on their talk page, let's hope it helps. Thanks to bjh21 for restoring the overwritten files! --Achim (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

POWERFUL 245 - uploading unfree files

POWERFUL 245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Repeated uploads of unfree files, files under Fair use and/or files with wrong copyright information. He was warned today morning at 5:50 (UTC) to familarisize himself with the licensing policies and stop uploading unfree images. Despite that, he uploaded File:Chicago Wishing You Were Here.jpg, which I yust nominated for speedy deletion as an album cover. This Image also has wrong information in its "Copyright holder" field. Discogs.com is afaik never the copyright holder of media uploaded there. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked for 3 days for copyvio-upload after strong warning. --Túrelio (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Category troll/sockpuppet

Very likely sockpuppet of Kalita Dipankar (talk • contribs • block log • filter log), who was mentioned in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 85#Category troll. The user is engaged in the same activity, putting an image in a bunch of unrelated categories to game search engines (diff of my edit removing said categories). Ytoyoda (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked 26Dipankar indefinitely as sockpuppet. Taivo (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Uploaders of File:Matías_Oviedo.jpg

Three differents users with similar usernames uploaded are reuploading a file with the same name and are confirmed to be the same file.--QTHCCAN (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked and tagged 2 of them indefinitely as sockpuppets. Taivo (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Repeated improper removal and addition of templates to File:Leeminhobynewscn.jpg

In spite of by repeated requests not to, Dominicoz, Newscnauthor and Newscn have repeatedly improperly removed {{Copyvio}}, {{No permission}} and {{Delete}} notices from File:Leeminhobynewscn.jpg, and have repeatedly improperly added {{PermissionOTRS}} and {{LicenseReview}} notices to the file. These three user accounts appear to be related: Dominicoz has stated that he or she is 'a reporter working at www.news.cn'. This has become disruptive. Dominicoz has stated an intention to raise a complaint against me.[23]

Disputed edits to File:Leeminhobynewscn.jpg

All these edits except for the last have been reverted by myself and by other editors. Please also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leeminhobynewscn.jpg. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. The deletion request has been open whole week and I closed it. The problem is in only one file, which is now deleted, so I do not block anybody. If the OTRS-permission is ever accepted, then the photo can be restored. Taivo (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Doug Coldwell and license laundering

I really don't really want to open this against such a prolific and good content creator over on enwiki. But after checking privately with User:CptViraj to make sure I'm not crazy, there is what appears to both of us to be a long-term history of license laundering by this user. I became aware of this user's Commons activity after I reviewed a now-w:WP:GA of theirs, w:Typographer (typewriter). I noticed that two images in that article, File:W A Burt typographer.jpg and File:W A Burt typographer top view.jpg, were clearly not own work photos as they are marked but are instead scans from an unknown book. Furthermore, I saw that File:Typographer replica 1893.jpg is cited to an in-copyright book and falsely marked public domain due to age when there's no reason I can see to think that this is from a photograph taken in 1893. I also saw that File:Burt demo.jpg has a false citation, to a non-existent Britannica year (1921) and no volume provided, only a dubious page number. I am very concerned that this user is polluting Commons with images he knows not to be public domain. His talk page is full of deletion notices. On enwiki, he immediately removed the images I pointed out without requesting deletion of them there, which makes me more suspicious. I really hope I'm wrong about Doug, but I'm getting more and more certain that I'm not and request admin attention as well as an explanation from Doug. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I've checked the mentioned files and it looks license laundering to me but I'm not an expert in PD area so I would like to see PD expert users' input. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
There are four images listed here.
File:W A Burt typographer.jpg and File:W A Burt typographer top view.jpg, were clearly not own work photos as they are marked - They are not marked as own work. They are imported from Flickr, marked as such, and went through review. Are you saying Doug is operating that Flickr account? Sure, it's unlikely that the person who operates that account actually created these images, but given the visible age of these images it's not surprising that someone just went with it. At worst careless, at best not a problem at all.
File:Typographer replica 1893.jpg is cited to an in-copyright book and falsely marked public domain due to age - no. it is accurately cited to an out of copyright magazine. a cursory google shows it was published in 1922 and indeed has images related to Burt on page 192 (though the archive.org version does not include images).
File:Burt demo.jpg has a false citation, to a non-existent Britannica year (1921) and no volume provided, only a dubious page number - the page number is not dubious, as it corresponds to this subject's coverage in 1911, but I don't see this image. Regardless, Getty has included it among their public domain cash grabs here, citing a creation date of 1829.
At the end of the day, the only really relevant question is how old those first two are and where they came from originally. I don't see this as a user problem. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Thanks for review, appreciated. Regarding the Flickr images, I meant "own work of clbinelli (the Flickr user)". Basically I think Doug should be more careful to double check Flickr licenses are real. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Largely Forgotten

  • User: Largely Forgotten (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  • Reasons for reporting: The user wrote that I was "ignorant" and that I "delete public domain pictures" and "played executioner" and had been "killing [their] photos of public domain artwork" and I "delete pictures that are in the public domain" and "owe [them] an apology", that their "pictures were already deleted", that "THESE WORKS OF ART ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN" and "were public domain from the first day they were created" and "they were removed" in this edit (all dead wrong). The user then wrote about their files that "They were already gone" in this other edit. All of that was wrong. The user then removed my name, but not any insult or false claim. The user refuses to sign their posts. I am sorry if I offended the user by starting Commons:Deletion requests/File:Las Animas Post Office, mural.jpg, but I will not apologize for defending this project from files it is unwilling to host as a matter of policy.

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Just adding my 2c here - I helped this user on IRC (they ended up in the enwiki help channel after having a bunch of problems with Wiki Loves Monuments uploads). My impression that they're a good-faith and positive contributor who a) isn't really familiar with some basic wiki editing concepts and b) is frustrated because of the errors they encountered and feeling lost. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
+1. I tried to encourage her because she's disappointed and downhearted. Most of the uploaded images of historic places are highly valuable and notable. So I suggest no further action here at ANU. --Achim (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, gee. I've been reported for being "mean" to Jeff G. Oh no! In some forum I never heard of in my two days here, and don't know how to use. Now what do I do? I just wanted to upload pictures. But Jeff G. wants everybody to know that he thinks I'm not nice enough. This complaining user has already reduced me to tears more than once. Downright mean. You may think I'm a problem, Jeff G. But the only problem now is that you are going to miss out on thousands of relevant, quality photographs. I'm already on my way out the door, deleting everything I possibly can on the way. You win, Jeff G. You are a wonderful, perfect saint. I am not worthy in any way. I understand that I am one person, inexperienced and vulnerable, and you will be able to make my life miserable if I stay. And so, I am leaving. Problem solved for me, too, because I won't have to put up with your domineering disdain any more. Hopefully, I will not be pestered by any more notices about my inadequacies and deficiencies and unworthiness. I am not even slightly interested in what Jeff G. thinks is wrong with me. Not ever again. Not another word, dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largely Forgotten (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

✓ Too late, she's gone. What a pity! --Achim (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RENATO20303

Can an administrator contact this new user in order to talk about the rules in Commons. He/she input mostly out of scope pictures (his cat, a woman painting a wall, etc...) or uploading satellite pictures from copyrighted websites that I had to flag for deletion.

Pierre cb (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Warned about scope and I nominated the files for deletion Gbawden (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Anybody else smell a spammer?

I'm sniffing Special:Contributions/Kojype. Claims own work for all uploads yet links to spammy sounding web sites. The exifs though are consistent if very minimal (only 1 field). --Palosirkka (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed; Kojype (talk · contribs) indef-blocked now. They uploaded randomly selected images of other authors, but put their spam-target into source- and author-entry. --Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done Thank you Túrelio! --Palosirkka (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Teen jumping in a trampoline park in Winnipeg Manitoba.jpg

Can one of you please close ASAP Commons:Deletion requests/File:Teen jumping in a trampoline park in Winnipeg Manitoba.jpg? The uploader/nominator gets nervous and makes edits that may cause them a block. So please close this DR. --E4024 (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@E4024: I addressed all four of his DRs. Would you care to notify him of this section?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Why? Because I asked a DR to be closed? No reason to notify anybody. --E4024 (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done I deleted the file. Licenses are irrevocable but we can still be nice and grant uploader a deletion. I did because the file is replacable. --MGA73 (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

IP 124.105.196.16 & 119.93.56.157

Please take a look at the activities of user 124.105.196.16 and 119.93.56.157, especially on File:Blessed_Carlo_Acutis.jpg. Series of reverts without any clarification. --WTM (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the 2 images for 1 month. --Túrelio (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Editing restriction review

We seem to have reached a satisfactory agreement that renders the original issue moot. A1Cafel agrees to voluntarily abide by the original restrictions amended to a rate limit of 10, to expire 01 January. This will hopefully give them time to be more deliberate with their nominations, and address in good faith the issues that have been raised by the community. A1Cafel agrees that a violation of this restriction will result in a block until their expiration. A1Cafel should notify the community at AN when their restrictions expires in the case that the community wishes to review their contributions when they resume unrestricted. GMGtalk 11:23, 7 October 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.

King of Hearts applies the editing restriction on August 20 per this thread, which limits the maximum number of DR to 5 per day and disallows any forms of deletion. I have asked the review first on User talk:King of Hearts#Review on topic ban, but he seems to link the problems of this and misuse of COM:F2C, which I believe is inappropriate. Moreover, as w:Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Authority to ban said, unless the community reached a consensus, individual editors, including administrators, may not directly impose bans. Looking at the above discussion, it seems that there is no clear consensus on supporting the editing restriction after two weeks of discussion. I don't want to, but now I have to, bring it here for discussion. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

  •  Info This request attempts to apply an English Wikipedia policy to Commons. Commons does not run its block or topic ban processes this way, specifically Commons does not have a ban procedure in the way that the policy linked spells out. Recommend close this thread and reconsider the foundation being used for raising a request for action. --Fæ (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree, the policy basis of odd warnings that appear to be bans needs discussion.
@King of Hearts: for comment. --Fæ (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The linked thread has general support for a topic ban, including a ban on nominating images for deletion entirely (which was my original proposal). I softened my stance a bit to give them the opportunity to prove themselves by filing good DRs and not uploading problem images of their own (in a sense, a weaker version of a ban which has arguably achieved consensus already). While he has been mostly OK on the first point, he has had several issues with the second point (importing Flickr images which are duplicates or copyvios), demonstrating a lack of understanding of Commons policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with that a concensus has been reached. After KoH has proposed the ban, only one user support it (which I doubt is a revengeful vote). When he propsed a weaker version of the ban, no users agree with the ban (perhaps Mdaniels5757 gives a weak support). Still, this can't say to have a clear concensus. Apart from that, KoH has never mentioned the second point for lifting/loosening the restriction on the previous thread and User talk:A1Cafel/Archive 5#Editing restrictions. " If I see a sustained period of good deletion nominations, then I will consider loosening or lifting the restrictions."As mentioned above, "he has been mostly OK on the first point", which means he also agrees that I fulfill the requirements on having a review on the editing restriction, there is no reason to decline it immediately. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
KoH never said that you have fulfilled the requirements and you have taken them out of context. I think don't think the restrictions should be reduced or removed, they should remain in place since you continue to the lack of competency (example uploading Public Mark images with meaningless file names https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20200921152801&type=upload&user=A1Cafel&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype= e.g. File:SR14798 (49894676013).jpg and again you're making moves without a summary of why it is being done!) . Bidgee (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
How can a set of Category:Press conferences during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Government of West Virginia‎ meaningless (out of scope)? You're a bit offtopic here. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Nice try in attempting to deflect and trying to state something I never said, the fact is what I said is that the file names are meaningless File:SR14798 (49894676013).jpg, File:SR14767 (49895498307).jpg, File:SWR8577 (49894678518).jpg). Bidgee (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
"SR" or "SWR" is the initials of the author Steven Wayne Rotsch, an employee of the West Virginia Governor's Communications Office. I don't think it is meaningless. Also, this thread is nothing deal with Flickr, so please stop on commenting the uploads from Flickr. If you really want to do so, please open a new discussion. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
*face palm* the point I'm making is you should be making the file names of the Flickr uploads that you have uploaded more descriptive on Commons (which COM:FNC allows and this proposal was aiming for). when I see File:SR14798 (49894676013).jpg (as a file name) I have no idea who the person is, I have no clue as what it is about. You could've named the files for example "File:West Virginia Governor Jim Justice giving a COVID-19 update on May 14 SR14798 (49894676013).jpg", we wouldn't be discussing it.
It just seems like you upload for the sake of uploading when you had access to F2C with little or no regard. Sorry but your Flickr uploads do have everything to do with this discussion, you want the restrictions removed but you have demonstrated that you have zero interest in taking feedback/criticism (basically feels like Failure or refusal to "get the point"), which is showing that you lack competency. Bidgee (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Being slightly literal, there is no consensus for a "ban" of any kind. The discussion linked to is not a consensus. It reads as a long, meandering discussion, with various options and possible actions discussed. If in line with "work constructively" and "respect community consensus" a consensus is needed to justify sysop action, then it would be better to make a clear specific proposal that A1Cafel can understand, and get a consensus for that. Alternatively any user account can be blocked under COM:BP but that would be based on an escalation of warnings and a pattern of case history, but out of policy topic bans are, out of policy. Putting aside all other issues, A1Cafel's policy based complaint with regard to the "ban" is understandable. --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  • (Edit conflict) Maybe I'm missing something. I see two users who supported a total TBAN from deletion entirely. One user who said they hadn't considered it fully but was "inclined to support". One user who, after the fact, felt they should be rate limited and require at least one participant in deletion nominations.
Even if we concede that there is "a consensus" there (and maybe also whether it might have been more appropriate to have a third party enact that consensus) I'm not sure there is a policy justification for interpreting that as leave to craft a specially tailored en.wiki discretionary sanction appealable only to the person who enacted it. Of course, if the community wishes to empower administrators to have such leeway then it can. It may be in a user's best interest to voluntarily agree to more lenient tailored requirements to avoid more total restrictions. But I don't see how such a restriction unilaterally imposed by an administrator has any validity under policy, and even if it did, it would be an act of consensus, appealable to the community. GMGtalk 13:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
"appeal-able to the community" is a nice thought, though in practice it feels unfair to the complainant to rely on the equivalent of a public "senate debate" as their only option for how to make an appeal against informal "tailored requirements".
KoH as a care taking point, there is no onus on yourself to be the one that needs to stay on top of this. --Fæ (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
That's kindof just a function of how consensus works, since there is no specific policy here regarding TBANs, enacting a TBAN is simply a matter of generic consensus. We could reach a generic consensus for pretty much anything not constrained by technical limitations or limits set by the Foundation. That consensus can only be undone by another consensus. In the case of a generic consensus for a specific TBAN, it is not the administrator who "does the banning", it is the community. GMGtalk 14:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I never said that it was appealable only to me; this page is always open to appeals. Just treat it like a normal block, i.e. another admin is allowed to unblock without need for a formal consensus, but should not do so unless they are convinced that the original block was either clearly in error or no longer needed. Here, maybe a short, informal consensus is advisable before lifting the restriction, because the block was enacted with the same.
Anyways, enough of procedure. What do you think about the substance of the restriction? After reviewing the various AN/U threads on him and his recent problems since the restriction, do you believe that A1Cafel has the required competence to nominate images for deletion? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The "substance" appears buried in long discussions. If there's value in giving opinions, it would be better based on an easy to understand list of critical evidence, a proposition for a specific well scoped TBAN, and a route for how it could be appealed considering there's no such thing as a life-long TBAN.
To be honest there's a lot of merit in removing whatever 'restriction' you have already placed, making the TBAN proposal in a separate discussion, based on a summary of evidence, and letting another sysop take responsibility for acting on any result. --Fæ (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I would suggest a compromise. @A1Cafel: agrees to these terms for the next three months, as a voluntary restriction, after which they are expired with no need for an appeal. If they violate this good faith agreement, then they agree that they may be blocked for the remainder of the duration. The alternative seems to be a topic ban from deletion all together, which I'm fairly confident they would find more objectionable. GMGtalk 01:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @GreenMeansGo: The idea seems good, but three months is a fairly long time. May I suggest either
    1. Shorten the restriction time to two months, with maximum 5 DR per day, or
    2. Maintain the three months restriction time, raised the maximum number of DR to 10. Would it still be fine? --A1Cafel (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I am OK with raising the restriction to 10 until the end of 2020. After that, whether to lift the DR rate cap entirely will depend on the quality of the DRs you file. Also, I am uncomfortable with you immediately starting to use speedy deletion processes after lifting the rate cap; I would like to see a sustained period of you filing large amounts of DRs without issues first. Again, part of the problem is that you would overwhelm the system and images would slip through the cracks and get mistakenly deleted as a result, so a gradual approach is best. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
It seems like there is some agreement here. Limited 10 until 1 January. If violated, a block until 1 January. Can we compromise on the lifting? No appeal, but A1Cafel is required to notify the community at AN that their restriction is lifted, so that others may review their work once it resumes. GMGtalk 12:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: OK I will take it. Thanks a lot for your decision. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@A1Cafel: To be clear, this isn't "my decision" and has nothing to do with my role as an administrator, nor do I have the authority as an administrator to impose these restrictions. This is a voluntary agreement on your part, in order to provide an opportunity to address concerns that the community has raised, without the need for a formal topic ban. GMGtalk 15:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Is this agreeable enough that we can move forward with it, without having future procedural discussions about the validity of the voluntary restriction? GMGtalk 15:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Sure. To summarize: 1) Limit of 10 images per day at DR and no nominating of images for deletion outside of DR, until 23:59, December 31, 2020 (UTC). 2) No formal restrictions afterwards, but any clearly incorrect speedy tagging ({{Speedydelete}}, {{Nld}}, {{Nsd}}, {{Npd}}, etc.) may be grounds for a block without further warning. Therefore I recommend you continue using the DR process instead of speedy for all but the most uncontroversial of cases. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:51, 5 October 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.

Wouldn't mind a second look?

I spotted two user editing at roughly the same time and uploaded images - not obvious copyvios - with the same "author". If someone would like to take a look here and here I think it might be useful - possible it is just me! TIA --Herby talk thyme 11:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hm... I do not see a problem here. A similar behaviour could always be the result of some class assignment that involves uploads to Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
At least the file File:Keto Chocolate Chip Cookies.jpg exists multiple places on facebook already. TommyG (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

GuidryJames

GuidryJames (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Disruptive DRs. Either a test account or a sock, either way nothing good. --Fæ (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I was about to flag this user too. I think this is probably a test acount since that beginner mistake. However, this is definetely a form of trolling.--QTHCCAN (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. Achim warned the user and closed both DR's. Taivo (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hanooz

The user Hanooz finished the process for clarification the permissions and make deletion requests with objections to deletion. It seems for him are questions for permission of uploads photographs of identifiable people the same how speedy deletions. Look here: [24], [25] and [26] Adelfrank (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I know my English is very bad. - Some people here are german speaking? Der Mitarbeiter Hanooz hat die Anfragen zur Berechtigung von Veröffentlichung Bilder lebender Personen beendet und statt dessn Löschanträge eröffnat, in denen er als Begründung angibt, dass er keinen Grund für eine Löschung sieht. Scheinbar verwechselt er Fragen nach der Erlaubnis zum Hochladen von Fotos von Personen mit Identität mit Schnelllöschanträgen, oder wie anders ist da zu deuten? Adelfrank (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi,
beziehst du dich dabei z.B. auf File:مرتضی دلشب۱.jpg? Hier sehe ich aber auch unmittelbar keinen Grund für eine no-permission-Markierung. Falls du dabei auf Persönlichkeitsrechte abzieltest, dafür ist das no-permission-tag nicht gedacht. Das verwenden wir rein Urheberrechts-bezogen. In diesem Fall ist ein regulärer LA (DR) der korrekte Prozess, auch weil er eine Diskussion erlaubt. (Hanooz ist Admin. Admins sind zwar nicht unfehlbar, wissen aber normalerweise was sie tun.) --Túrelio (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
achso, verstehe [27] da gibt es keinen Grund für no-permissions-Markierung bei own work und die Bermerkung This file does not qualify for speedy-deletion and a regular deletion request will be started als Umwandlung der permission-Frage in einen deletion request mit der Bemerkung it has metadata. I see no valid reason for deletion ist korrekt. - Verstehe admins müssen sich gegenseitig beistehen. Dein Kommentar zu Persönlichkeitsrechten und das eine permission-Nachfrage nur bei Urheberrechtsverstossannahmen gestattet sei, nehme ich ur Kenntnis. Wieder ein Beispiel wie das Copyright durch admins umgangen wird. Na macht mal weiter, am besten alle permissions-Nachfragen verbieten. Was solls macht euren Dreck alleine. mir reicht's. Adelfrank (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Offenkundig willst du nicht verstehen, schade. Dann ist es besser zu gehen, statt andere anzupampen, die sich Zeit für deine Frage hier gekommen hatten. --Túrelio (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Mrcl lxmna

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

These people always rwsort to ad hominem attacks agaibst me despite the fact that there is really no freedom of panorama in the phils. Read the sections on RA8293 on limitations of copyright - sec 184 - and you wont see anything that permits free commercial use of copyrighted works and their reproductions. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Multichill as blocking Admin.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I may want to repeat the ff. Points:

From RA8293 - CHAPTER II. ORIGINAL WORKS - 172.1 Literary and artistic works... "(g) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography or other works of art; models or designs for works of art;"

- CHAPTER VIII. - LIMITATIONS ON COPYRIGHT -SEC. "184. Limitations on Copyright. - 184.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright: (d) The reproduction and communication to the public of literary, scientific or artistic works as part of reports of current events by means of photography, cinematography or broadcasting to the extent necessary for the purpose; (Sec. 12, P.D. No. 49) AND (e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication to the public, sound recording or film, if such inclusion is made by way of illustration for teaching purposes and is compatible with fair use: Provided, That the source and of the name of the author, if appearing in the work, are mentioned AND (h) The use made of a work by or under the direction or control of the Government, by the National Library or by educational, scientific or professional institutions where such use is in the public interest and is compatible with fair use"

There's an added note at 184.2. Which says "The provisions of this section shall be interpreted in such a way as to allow the work to be used in a manner which does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the right holder's legitimate interests." No indication that commercial and unrestricted uses of copies of artistic works including buildings, sculptures and murals are considered not copyright violations.

Wikipedia commons doesnt welcome content and media that are licensed to be fair use and / or to be noncommercial. These deletion requests are compliant to concerns aired to me on social media by various anon Facebook and Twitter users about copyrighted derived works hosted here. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

So any links to the posts that you claim that exist? Also an Admin isn't going to care about the text that you have clearly copy and pasted. Bidgee (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It might be time to put a hard limit on DR creations, the fact that the user is creating a bigger backlog with all the DR they have been creating. Just today alone, 19 DR have been created and 72 for the month of October so far! Bidgee (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

For a new user, 91.8% of the edits have been done using VisualFileChange. Clearly you're an experienced editor who is using an alternate account for a single purpose and not disclosing which is your main account. Bidgee (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

 Comment this troll essentially made a duplicate DR at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Plaza Rajah Sulayman. There is an active DR to the same files, but this troll filed DRs to the same images. I'd wish I had an ability to remove those replicated deletion tags on the images (dunno if that's AWB), but right now I have to remove those manually. To admins, please stop this troll now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Slashing out one input from mine. Verbcatcher told me that it's better to raise objection at the particular DR. I raised my objection at the 2nd section, made by this troll or vandal or who they are. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

AngelinaZastavkina

Requesting a block of AngelinaZastavkina (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for repeatedly uploading of the same copyrighted file/s despite numerous warnings on the user's talk page. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

✓ 2 weeks. Sealle (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Abusive IP

194.56.199.163 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log) and this message. There's a thread also relating to this at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Abusive IP/account. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for three days. Should they continue their attacks, please report. Thank you. Ahmadtalk 17:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Marjdabi

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

The user is making disruptive edits to a map file [28] (as well as some personal attacks in the edit summaries), ignoring that there is a debate [29] on Wikipedia including the original author of the file regarding some recent changes. I let him know of the debate in both the edit summary of my revert and on his talk page: [30]. A user with the same name (and style) has been indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I've indef'd Marjdabi for the personal attack. Please take also care that we do not want to see edit wars on these maps at Commons. Disputes are best resolved by uploading alternative versions under different filenames. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

LordLiberty

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Indef'd because of the personal attack – LordLiberty is apparently not here to contribute constructively and collegially. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@AFBorchert: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I've now removed talk page access as the harassment was continued on the talk page. There is a {{Unblock}} request open on that page with no rationale. Would some admin colleague please close that? --AFBorchert (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
This found now a continuation at en:wp, social media, and by private email using an email address of mine that can be found on the web. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Declined unblock request since the account has been locked. If this user decides to sock to pester anyone, please file for a lock request at m:SRG. Minoraxtalk 17:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Global lock has already been performed. --Túrelio (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Link. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Kiagus Muhammad Hanif Sirua

Although part of their trolling have been lost due to deleted files, still you can see a lot in their recent edits. I am not of the side to ask or give long blocks to anyone, but a simple admin warning (which they know that it can be followed by a block) would be more than enough. If not, just a day's rest maybe, he's still a kid. --E4024 (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@E4024: I notified the user of this section for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
How nice of you. Thanks a lot! I hope now he leaves me in peace and trolls around you... :) --E4024 (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. I closed couple of DR's of his uploads, nominated his latest upload for regular deletion and warned him not to upload more copyvios. If this does not help, then he should be blocked. Taivo (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course it did not help; these kids only understand certain ways. (IMHO of course.) --E4024 (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Nothing will help; he is back already. Quack, quack. :) --E4024 (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Taivo as blocking Admin.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. I have deleted these images in the past! I blocked the master on 6th of October for month and today I blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely. Uploads will go for deletion as well. Taivo (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks! I have reported them at m:srg#Global lock for Kiagus Muhammad Hanif Sirua and Kabupaten Indragiri Hulu.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Promote justice (talk · contribs)

Repeatedly removing "No permission" notifications. I'm currently not well enough to deal with. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Commons has proper warning license and I warned the user. If this does not help, then we can block him/her. Thank you for reverting problem edits! Taivo (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Shanimughalzone

I think User:Shanimughalzone has trolled enough; time to have a short rest. --E4024 (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a month. -- CptViraj (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Tyvm. Just like Live netram. I cannot follow who is the duck of whom!.. --E4024 (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Factsguy82/Mulman82

It looks like Mulman82 (talk · contribs) is using Factsguy82 (talk · contribs) to get around the former's block on en-wiki. The latter uploaded File:Aston vs New York.jpg, an exact duplicate of File:Liam Mulhall Aston vs New York.jpg (which itself is a re-upload of File:Liam Mulhall in action for Aston Bulls.jpg, I believe). The edits aren't exactly abusive, but the user should pick one user name and stick to it. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Their first account was actually Mullbot82 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  which got blocked as bad username. Based on their username & uploads, they uploading personal images.--BevinKacon (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Verdy p, redux

User:Verdy p appears to be renewing his accusation that I was making false statements (or perhaps he is saying this about someone else -- he is being vague, but I'm the obvious referent. We went through a lengthy process here and COM:AN/U back in July that determined I was not doing so, and he was blocked for a month, largely for refusing to withdraw or apologize for the false accusation.

If he is renewing the same accusation as last time, then I am renewing my request for him to withdraw his accusation that I was lying. If he is saying this about someone else, then he owes it to us to say who exactly he is accusing or, again, to withdraw the accusation.

I would point out that this almost immediately followed the first time we have interacted since his return. - Jmabel ! talk 22:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

No I contest the procedure that was used then. verdy_p (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Verdy p: We have a serious problem here if you chose to continue with your false accusations against Jmabel that led to the previous block. The history of events was laid out in the previous thread at this board and you were not able to provide a diff for your claims. A renewal of this false accusation would resume the previous chain of disruptions that led to your last block. This will not be tolerated. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I've not accused him of anything, I contested the way the decision was taken, by not considering the correct order of events, for what was a very minor case that I managed corerctly. Unfortunately multiple users mixed the messages and this confused everything, including the decision made which was really very excessive and did not allow any form of independant appeal by the normal Wikimedia procedures (based on a analysis by a single admin that was confused; we were all confused by the order of events). And it's not friendly in Wikimedia to forbid me to give my own opinion only on my own user talk page where this talk was left and I still want another moderator to seriously analuyse what happened (given that I did not abuse any page and did not made abusive edits, and replied to the concerns; may be my replies were not sufficient, but stopping there and complaining upward was not the correct proceudre documented and I was not given any chance to explain my position before the block decision was made, and it was impossible to negociate anything.) I still think (this is my opinion, don't forbid me to give it, the other user can have his opinion as well but I don't see at all why this would have been considered as a personal attack: the only person that was personally attacked was me, nobody else.). I had given evidences they were just ignored, then you asked me to provide other things that I was in the total impossibility to provide because there was nothing absolutely else than what I provided: all happened on my user talk page and the fact a separate talk started elsewhere where I was personally accused without giving me a chance to reply or defend myself (trying to defend me was considered "abusive", there was no emergency at all to take this extreme decision when I did not act maliciously). verdy_p (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
You are still talking about “someone that made false statements”. Please drop the WP:STICK. You had plenty of time to prove your accusations or to retract them in July. Restarting all this after the expired block is not a path to move forward. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Sealle

I would like to report Inadequate behavior from user Sealle.

About one month, I've got blocked for uploading unfree pictures, in the template which was left to me, there is a message that the administration should remove it after time is expired. I tried to bring his attention, but it was not successful so I decided to remove it by myself as there is no help.

This user reverted the changes on my page (which was expected) and I have left a question if this template could be removed on his page, this user has reverted my changes on his page and copied all text on my page discussion, I persisted to continue discussion on his page as his page look much clearier then my and after that he started edit wars, has it been done by any rules?

I believe this user was misbehaving in this situation, and the only one who should get those warnings, from my side I was just going to resolve the template which was on my page, I'm not even sure if I was unblocked from uploading pictures, this user has administration role, how his behavior will benefit other on the platform?

Thanks, Itsmeant (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Marla Raucher Osborn

User Marla_Raucher_Osborn (talk · contribs) is impersonating a real public person who does not have a Commons account. Requesting a forced username change to stop the impersonation (and username policy violation). See OTRS Ticket#2020100710002553 (which resulted in a block and deletion of all uploads claiming "own work", but left the impersonation intact) for details and evidence of the real person's identity. TarichaRivularis (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Third-party rename requests are almost never granted. In any case, account renaming is handled globally by the Stewards. Please see meta:Steward requests/Username changes. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand why third-party requests are suspicious, but the real person has no voice on the Commons because they have no account. Your reference to the stewards requests page is very helpful and appreciated. If I understand correctly, the real person can register as a user under some other name and then request a usurp or other relief from the impersonation (though the caution "Per standard procedure, accounts with valid edits are not usurped" may indicate a problem). It's frustrating: there is an official policy against impersonation, but no clear process for undoing it after it happens, if the impersonating user does not request the change themselves. Anyway, thank you for the quick response and for the advice about the stewards page. You can close this request now. TarichaRivularis (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Update: The real person has now created a wiki account and opened a username change request with the stewards, as suggested here. TarichaRivularis (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Pnz vini

Uploaded a copyvio after last warning given on Oct 15, 2020. The copyvio in question (File:Foto oficial prefeito de petrolina miguel coelho.jpg) may be a reupload of File:Prefeito-de-petrolina-miguel-coelho-200x300.jpg. FunnyMath (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

They reuploaded the file a third time. No evidence is given that the image is freely licensed: File:Miguel de Souza Coelho Leão.jpg FunnyMath (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week. I would block him/her for longer time, but (s)he responds on user talkpage. Taivo (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

User:AndriiDr

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

  • This user is on a campaign to change category names (but surprisingly not files contained in them) "Kiev" to "Kyiv". It was been pointed out to him that Commons:Categories#Category_names states that categories should generally be named in English and that he should start a discussion. He cites a discussion on en:WP which claims a consensus for "Kyiv", but that is of only persuasive authority to us. Instead of ceasing and starting a discussion HERE, he continues. This is disruptive editing. Please advise/sanction as appropriate. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week. The block can be lifted after reaching consensus. Taivo (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Juanchocarbonero

Just from looking at User talk:Juanchocarbonero and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Juanchocarbonero there appears to be pattern going back several years of Juanchocarbonero seemingly not understanding COM:L. The account was given a final warning by Yann in November 2015, blocked for a week in November 2016 by EugeneZelenko and then blocked again for two weeks by EugeneZelenko in December 2016 by EugeneZelenko, but the problems have continued.

I only stumbled upon this because I had the DR page on my watchlist, and I normally don't advocate for blocks of editors if there are other ways to try and resolve things. At this point, however, I don't see any sign that this editor is likely going to have an ephiphany anytime soon when it comes to image licensing and they're still uploadng files at a fairly regular place. For sure, not all of their uploads seem to be a problem, but there are enough for this to be a considered more of a serious concern than an brief lapse of judgement.

Perhaps there's a way to put into place some kind of restriction on the account which limits the type of content they can upload as opposed to an outright blocking of their account, i.e. like a en:WP:TOPICBAN on English Wikipedia. Perhaps there's a way to place them under some sort of direct supervision where their uploads need to be vetted by a Commons administrator before being accepted. I'm not sure, but I think a long-term block might be warranted if there are are no such alternatives and Juanchocarbonero doesn't take steps asap to address the problem. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I followed the instructions given at the top of this page, and attempted to notify Juanchocarbonero of this discusison, but something strange happened at User talk:Juanchocarbonero#COM:AN/U that I'm not quite sure how to fix. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: That page is a member of Category:User talk pages where template include size is exceeded, I compensated.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
For pages where the user may no longer be active, adding to Category:Talk page trimmer will dramatically reduce template transclusions. --Fæ (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Sealle archived the talkpage. Taivo (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Need help

User:Enekorga seems uploading many unfree images, please help to check his contributions. Thx. 轻语者 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@轻语者: I notified them for you. Please do that yourself next time.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Liam Mulhall

It seems Mullbot82 (talk · contribs) (already blocked) Mulman82 (talk · contribs) and Factsguy82 (talk · contribs) are dedicated accounts to the uploading of unlicensed pictures of the same person.--QTHCCAN (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

About User:Rafic.Mufid

The user was banned because for abusing the puppet, and most of the files he uploaded were requested for deleted. But many requests are still open, and some files that should have been requested for deletion are still in a normal state. I hope a sysop can handle it. 轻语者 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

17jugi

This seems to be some well meaning, if unrequested advice, but a user’s Commons talk page is hardly the place. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Please have a look at notices of User talk:Avh143. Currently its 15+ images violations committed and still continuing. The author is continuing even being notified several times. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user (was not warned in the past) and nominated one more upload for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Ferrari Roma image

I'm having problems trying to not get the Ferrari Roma image taken by my friend deleted. I tried emailing the users involved with the report to no respond. I know it only been 4 days but I don't want the image to end up being deleted after 30 days despite the fact I have solid proof that. I tried to get my friend to email the OTRS to prove he gave permission only to be turned down due to a number of problems. Unlike most OTRS cases, the Roma image isn't from a website but instead from a Discord server I run and gave me permission to upload it. --Vauxford (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Ferrari Roma image

Pinging @Coffee as Agent for Ticket:2020101910016687.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Pardon me, I had been off OTRS/wiki for a couple days. I'll check on that now. — Coffee // have a cup // 23:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

User constantly uploads copyrighted images

User:Leonard velas constantly uploads copyrighted images taken from ecured.cu. His talk page is full of notices about these images, they get deleted and he uploads the exact same pictures again and again. He's been blocked in the past but his behavior hasn't changed.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him for a month (second block). Taivo (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Ronnie Ong (talk · contribs)

User:Ronnie Ong has uploaded multiple images that are either fully copyrighted or missing permissions. He appears to be promoting himself on the English Wikipedia in doing so. I'm not sure if blocking is appropriate in this moment, but he certainly needs to have eyes on him. --I dream of horses (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@I dream of horses and Túrelio: I warned him on both projects and added an anchor for the notification.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

User:NairobiPapel

Likes to upload copyrighted books (!) and to create deletion requests against "porn" and "nudity". -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  •  Strongly oppose any action against this user. With only two deletion requests on his talk page, he cannot be considered a "persistent violator". In addition: while commons is not censored, there is no rule against placing deletion requests on nude or pornographic out of scope images. AshFriday (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Serial, serious, copyright violations. There's no accident in the upload of these copyright works, or making false copyright claims of own work. Anyone examining File:LearningWebDesign.pdf must draw the same conclusions.
Uploads need to be blitzed and account blocked, this is vandalism. --Fæ (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • As per Fæ I have trawled through their uploads and tagged them as appropriate with extra guidance as needed. The explicit copyvios have now been deleted by an Admin. One file has seven days to properly prove copyright status. Four others appear to be released under CC-BY-SA so I have not problem-tagged them as yet, but have instead given an advisory to go back to properly source, as all claimed as "own work", so no attribution. I have given the first stage copyvio warning. (Their first three files appear to be genuine own work so not all bad). Thanks. Crep1711 (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Let's underline the fact that these are deliberate, hard to verify, false copyright claims being made on multiple files. This account should be blocked, rather than treated like a trusted contributor.
Checking File:CSSNotes.pdf, not only did they make deliberate false claims of own work, but these were encoded into multiple elements of structured data. Fixing these false copyright statements means multiple edits by others, wasting everyone's time, even if the object might be a "free" work. This example has now been tagged as a copyvio due to the copyrighted images embedded inside the book.
Again, these uploads should be blitzed, this uploading account has an obvious track record of uploading copyright violations and deliberately obscuring this fact with claims of own work.
Also worth examining are unexplained reversions of works by others, and the unexplained removal of valid categories. Examples diff diff.
  • Checking File:Learning-CSS.pdf shows the identical copyright problems as CSSNotes. The own work claims were deliberately misleading, and on deeper examination, the work itself cannot be hosted on this project. --Fæ (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose block purely on the basis that he wasn't never told or warned about this in September - sure he should know not to upload copyrighted work claiming to be his own but we all do silly things we later regret myself included - He's since apologised and stated it wont be repeated. If he ever does this again then he should be immediately indeffed however at this time IMHO the user should be given the benefit of the doubt. If he was warned or blocked for this back in April etc then sure but given he wasn't I cannot support blocking them. –Davey2010Talk 12:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose a block at this stage. A 2nd stage copyvio warning would suffice (if appropriate - see my other comments in 2nd section below). Thanks. Crep1711 (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

NairobiPapel second request for action

The user has returned to uploading copyvio files in the last 24 hours. Could someone now block this account? They have been warned multiple times by different contributors over several days, have not responded to these warnings or engaged with discussion about their uploads.

--Fæ (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI, immediately after creating this section, there was a personal reply that can be taken in to account, ref diff. --Fæ (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Info There has only been 1 actual upload File:Learning-css.340.pdf since my first stage copyvio warning (see original section above), the other contributions in last 24 hours appear to be edits only on existing files. Also this file is one those supposedly released under CC-BY-SA see page 23 or 24 or thereabouts. I haven't had time to go through it to check for pictures as Fae did on the others as mentioned in original section. So at this stage it not sure if 2nd stage copyvio warning is appropriate. Thanks. Crep1711 (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

User:C.Suthorn

C.Suthorn (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Uses the the COM:CAPTIONS of every uploaded file for personal declaration of the own opinion on this software feature. I requested to stop this in June and last week, but did not got any reply. --GPSLeo (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I directed the user to see COM:USER#Regarding licenses in this edit 13:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)‎, but they keep transcluding User:C.Suthorn/license-template for licensing (23,258 times already) in violation of that guideline, for instance this latest upload 16:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not overly concerned about the license template, as it's an unfortunately common practice. However, I do think that C.Suthorn's use of captions (1 2 3 4 5 6...) rises to the level of tendentious editing and disrupting Commons to prove a point. I understand that C.Suthorn is not a fan of the captions feature, but the proper response to disliking a feature is to just not use it. Adding bogus captions only makes it more difficult for those who do wish to use the feature to do so. @C.Suthorn: please stop adding useless captions to file description pages. If you continue to do so, I will block you from editing. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Lizenztemplate: Vor kurzem wurde das no-facebook-tmplate gelöscht, möglicherweise wird es demnächst wieder hergestellt. Ich habe in meinem template eine Variante davon. Würde ich meine Lizenzangaben nicht über ein Template einbinden, würde sowas 23000 Edits des CommonsDelinkers auf meiner Watchlist innerhalb kurzer Zeit verursachen und einer Wiederherstellung von no-facebook weitere 23000 edits auf meiner watchlist bedeuten. Soetwas könnt ihr mir natürlich antun, ich muss aber nicht damit einverstanden sein, wenn ihr mir das antut.
SDC: Ich bin sehr für SDC, aber ich bin strikt dagegen SDC an die Wand zu fahren. Genau das geschieht. Ich will hier keinen Punkt machen, ich mache bei dem an die Wand fahren nur nicht mit. WP und Commons sind nicht für die kleine Bubble derer da, die hier beitragen, sondern für die Milliarden von Konsumenten von WP und Commons-Inhalten. Und die verstehen nichts von Lizenzen. So wie es hier gehandhabt wird, werden potentielle Beiträger zu WP und Commons aktiv vertrieben. Dagegen kann ich nichts tun, aber ich muss selber nicht dazu beitragen.
Upload-Wizard: Was den Wizard betrifft, habe ich aufgegeben. Meine Absicht ist, künftig andere Upload-Möglichkeiten zu verwenden. Das wird mir aber kutzfristig noch nicht möglich sein. Und das bedeutet, dass ich meine Bilder von der Alarmstufe Rot von gestern und aus dem September und aus Braunschweig erst viel später hochladen werde. Es scheint derzeit auch keine anderen Bilder von der Alarmstufe Rot zu geben (seltsamerweise auch nicht von GPSLeo). Und das empfinde ich fatal, weil das die Bilder sind, die illustrieren könnten, was in diesem November mit Deutschland passiert und das wird das Schicksal von Deutschland (und damit auch der EU) auf Jahrzehnte beinflussen. Auf der Alarmstufe Rot wurde dazu aufgerufen, zu fotografieren und die Bilder in (soziale) Netz zu stellen. Da ich selber mehrfach (mal mit Erfolg, meist erfolglos) versucht habe, für solche Bilder von den Fotografen Freigaben für WP zu erbitten, ist meine Prognose: Da wird leider nichts kommen.
Blocken: Darüber habe ich nachgedacht, aber ich denke, das würde letztendlich als unangemessen erkannt werden, da das damit offenbar gewünschte Ziel nicht erreicht werden kann.
--C.Suthorn (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Translation:
License template: The no-facebook-tmplate was recently deleted, it may be restored soon. I have a variant of this in my template. If I didn't include my license information via a template, something like this would cause 23,000 edits of the CommonsDelinker on my watchlist within a short time and a restoration of no-facebook would mean another 23,000 edits on my watchlist. You can do that to me, of course, but I don't have to agree if you do this to me.
SDC: I am very much for SDC, but I am strictly against hitting the wall with SDC. This is exactly what is happening. I don't want to make a point here, I just don't take part in the hitting the wall. WP and Commons are not there for the small bubble of those who contribute, but for the billions of consumers of WP and Commons content. And they don't understand anything about licenses. The way it is handled here, potential contributors to WP and Commons are actively driven out. There is nothing I can do about it, but I don't have to contribute to it myself.
Upload wizard: I gave up on the wizard. My intention is to use other upload options in the future. But that won't be possible for me in the near future. And that means that I won't upload my pictures from yesterday's AlarmstufeRot and from September's and from Braunschweig's AlarmstufeRot until much later. There doesn't seem to be any other images of the AlarmstufeRot at the moment (strangely enough, not from GPSLeo either). And I find that fatal, because these are the pictures that could illustrate what is happening to Germany this November and that will influence the fate of Germany (and thus also the EU) for decades. At the AlarmstufeRot, people were asked to take photos and post them on the (social) network. Since I myself have tried several times (sometimes with success, mostly unsuccessfully) to ask the photographers for prrmission for WP for such images, my forecast is: Unfortunately, nothing will come of this.
Blocking: I've thought about that, but I think it would ultimately be recognized as inappropriate as the apparently desired goal cannot be achieved with it.
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

User:ICFrieden

ICFrieden (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) appears to be a sockpuppet of IntanGomieber (talk • contribs • block log • filter log). Both users have uploaded the same image for File:Revi Mariska.jpg and File:Afdhal Yusman.jpg appears to be a recreation of File:Afdhal Yusman, Aktor Gentabuana.jpg. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Lucho365

User Lucho365 may be a sockpuppet of User:Luis camilo álvarez vega, who was blocked for vandalism. Lucho365 is deliberately introducing the "no permission since" template on many files previously edited by Luis camilo and his confirmed sockuppets (1, 2, 3) in order to delete them. Some of those pages previously edited by him were protected. --Bankster (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Mista for 4

Mista for 4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), the rookie (or evading block?) contributor, who makes bulk edits, randomly changing the license tages and creation dates for earlier uploaded images: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35], has been blocked for this before. Leaves uncivil comments: [36] [37]. --VLu (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Sandeep Jamuda

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

Sandeep Jamuda has uploaded multiple copyright violations. They're all photos of him. --I dream of horses (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC) (Fixed template at 10:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)) (edited text at 11:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC))

✓ Done. The user is globally locked, uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Bull-Doser

Hello,

That user is voting twice and sometimes even thrice to keep his nominated pictures. As you can see in this link, he likes to say that I'm a crazy person, which is not respectful at all. He won't reply to any messages I would send him (look at his discussion page here or on FRWiki). He is also banned from ENWiki for multiple abuses. The quality of his pictures and/or the relevance is the general problem.

--Myloufa (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

There may be civility issues, but it's no crime to vote to keep your own photographs and what happens at fr.wp is a matter for that project. As the DR is open, it's best to let that discussion complete or add further explanation to the nomination if necessary.
It may help if it was explained what action is expected from this thread. --Fæ (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: I do not say that it is wrong to vote on these for him, I say it's wrong to vote twice or thrice on the same request to maybe change the result. I expect a strong warning to be given to him for that or even a block. Also, there are over ten DRs that are like this, I just gave two examples. As for the civility issue, you seem to think it's normal to insult people on internet‽ I maybe should have put that request that in Block and Protection? --Myloufa (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
The act of adding multiple 'vk' templates to a DR does very little, it certainly will not influence the closing decision. You can be bold and remove them, but it may be easiest to avoid conflict, or giving the impression that this is part of a two-sided argument.
The most likely outcome here would be a warning for @Bull-Doser: to stop doing this, because it's disruptive. Calling someone crazy is not acceptable, but it's unlikely to result in a block, unless there's a pattern of hounding and harassment behind it. --Fæ (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Fæ You may want to see this where BD has called Myloufa crazy twice in February so this is certainly not a one off incident and it should also be said that between February to now he may of repeatedly called Myloufa crazy in comments too. (ignoring the comment above). –Davey2010Talk 21:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree it's an issue, but the first warning was today, not February.
Should they carry on creating a hostile environment, then COM:BP applies, probably with escalating blocks.
Hi, @Bull-Doser: , you are welcome to explain your perspective.
My own comments here make a significant presumption of good faith, and I have not investigated any of your actions on other projects as only your behaviour here should be relevant to any actions on this project. Please take this as an opportunity to stay within the norms of non-hostile behaviour that are required for you to continue contributing. If you do not understand what another editor has written, say so, but say it politely. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

HersiliaAramazd

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war map, the target of ongoing disruptive edits and edit-warring.

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

I have explained to this user repeatedly what is problematic with his edits to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War Map [38] in the edit summaries of my reverts of his edits and on his talk page [39] & [40]. However, he keeps making disruptive edits to the map which represent major and controversial changes to the map, without the reliable and neutral sources that are needed to back them up. The lack of response towards users voicing objections towards his edits on his talk page as well as the language of his edit summaries [41] shows a lack of desire to work and talk with fellow editors in order to reach consensus regarding the relevant issues. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Anton is the type of user who believes repeatedly warning someone makes him "right" in a content dispute. Attempting to trick administrators into believing his side in a dispute. He is reverting my referenced edit to an unreferenced version on the map. He is the one who deserves a block for doing this and even going as far as trying to trick administrators. My ref: [42]. HersiliaAramazd (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I've explained to HersiliaAramazd repeatedly and clearly that his recent changes to the map are not substantiated by the source that he provides, and what is required to make constructive edits to the map, in the edit summaries and on his talk page [43] & [44]. He keeps on reverting back to the same edit he made without providing the proper sources for the edit [45]. Of relevance is that the user has been reported on Wikipedia for disruptive editing [46] and has engaged in apparent canvassing [47]. AntonSamuel (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Comment I blocked HersiliaAramazd for 6 months from editing the map due to edit warring. Taivo (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Second request for page protection

As this is a war map, it is certain to remain controversial and a target for edit-warring. There are passionate folks that want to edit this territorial map, and the sources being used are either never produced or media reports rather than quality reliable sources that can be validated to a good 'wikipedia article' standard. The map would benefit from protection, which would at least encourage discussion of updates. The map is widely used on multiple Wikipedias, there is an onus on the Commons community to ensure that the map image has reasonable credibility and as an original work, there is some record of sources and the debate about the quality of sources.

The issues raised about about canvassing and so on, are unlikely to settle down without the change process for this map becoming a matter of more considered consensus. Many of the accounts involved are SPA, which is unsurprising, and it is likely that many of the contributors have little or no experience with how Commons guidelines and policies function. --Fæ (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: I would agree that an increase in the protection level of the map would be prudent to avoid disruptive edits and vandalism to the file. I've tried to stay out of the editing for a while and only intervene when edits are clearly disruptive - when the sources do not support the changes and when users are using sources biased with regard to the edits. Regarding the reliability and neutrality of the sources that are used for the map, there has been a long discussion regarding this previously on Wikipedia [48]. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for highlighting the sourcing discussion, which is impressively long. It would be a great outcome if these source debates could result in a firm set of accepted publishers or journalists that are considered quality by consensus, and this list were added to the image page itself, and used to justify future changes. As a process that would be both visible and enforceable, it certainly would remove debate about whether reverts were reasonable or not, and remove the need to refer to edit comments. --Fæ (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at File:Vendimiando, Jerez (2).jpg

I'd appreciate 3rd-party intervention at File:Vendimiando, Jerez (2).jpg, where User:Fæ persists in removing the {{Artwork}} template added by User:Bukk, which gives more detailed and complete (and better internationalised) information about the file, drawn from Wikidata.

The diff showing just the wikitext doesn't do justice to the full picture: it's useful to compare the actual file-pages that result (before, after) to see the difference.

User:Fæ's actions appear to be spurred by this discussion he started at VPP, in which the file was given by me as an example. (One of 300,000 artwork files using the {{Artwork}} template, drawing from wikidata).

I'd appreciate intervention, because IMO this degradation of the reader-value of a file page is not helpful; nor are such edits to files given as examples in such discussions, while those discussions are ongoing. Jheald (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Restoring information about copyright, and valid wikitext on an image page is fine and correct. Deliberately blanking information about copyright (Photograph: All rights reserved, photographer not displayed) and blanking valid wikitext (Joaquín Sorolla, the single mention in the wikitext of the painter), making an image un-findable were someone searching this project for the painter's name, is not. Neither is there any evidence of editwarring according to our policy that defines it.
Jheald would do well to review COM:AGF, which seems absent in the creation of this thread and their recent intemperate bad faith comments.
Refer to the notice on Jheald's talk page at diff.
Should Jheald wish to add the {{artwork}} template that would be super, and I 100% agree it would be a potential improvement. However in that process the information currently in the wikitext must be preserved, not arbitrarily and unthinkingly blanked, when there is no consensus that could possibly support such a damaging change.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: A notice you have placed on my talk page seven minutes after I filed the above complaint.
Also, FWIW, searches work fine on Bukk's version of the page, because they search the text of pages after templates have been transcluded. So eg a search for "Beach scene with fish-sellers at Katwijk" still finds File:Jan van Goyen - Strandgezicht met visverkopers te Katwijk, 1641.jpg, even though those words don't (and never have) appeared in the wikitext of that page.
The sole effect of Fæ's repeated edit is to degrade the user experience of the file page, particularly for international users. Jheald (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I saved the notice to your talk page, before I could possibly have seen the notification. Try to stick to COM:AGF, and it's fine to raise questions on my talk page, before rushing to an admin noticeboard, as indeed I had the courtesy to do on your talk page.
As you seem firmly unwilling for unknown reasons to add the artwork template without blanking the wikitext, I have done it for you diff.
Using the Artwork template was the sole basis of your complaint, I'm presuming, given that there is no consensus to blank wikitext?
As for the reasons to preserve original wikitext as a default, there are many. But this noticeboard is not the place for to try throwing assertions around about how Commons must establish a new policy to blank all our wikitext records about images, in a new order for this project to becoming subservient and driven from Wikidata and becoming completely reliant on whatever the quality of unvalidated Wikidata entries may or may not be; which in the recent example may not today even include the title of a painting it has an entry for.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

2001:4452:1f5:c100:94ed:3d99:7f75:40da

2001:4452:1f5:c100:94ed:3d99:7f75:40da (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user arbitrarily removed the copyvio tag and the dw no source tags. Probably the same user as User:AichiWikiFixer, who uploaded the copyvio file and dw no source files. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I reported this user to Vandalism, because the user removed the tag again after warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
User:AichiWikiFixer also made this fraudulent License Review and has been overwriting maps of others despite prior warning.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

User:ゆかち

ゆかち (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) 14:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non admin comment) Yuraily Lic, You failed to warm them which I've now done for you. Please warn people first and if they don't listen then come here. –Davey2010Talk 14:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I understand. Davey2010, Thank you! --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@Yuraily Lic: You also failed to notify them of this section, which I've now done for you. Please notify people when you come here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I understand. Jeff G., Thank you! --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@Yuraily Lic: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

E4024

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  • These are three of the latest: Michael Hadjian July 2019.jpg Hagop Asadourian New Jersey.jpg Der Bartev Ordination.jpg "13 KB, too small to take it as "own work". User behaviour merits something more than a simple warning." Being a small filesize is no implication at all that these aren't the uploader's own work. Also the persistent attitude of requests like "User behaviour merits something more than a simple warning." is way past any acceptably civil behaviour here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry I disagree. While E4024 should probably be more verbose in his nominations, often he is spot on. In the case of File:Michael Hadjian July 2019.jpg this looks suspiciously like a screenshot. I have seen enough images like this, lacking exif and uploaded by a new user to apply PCP and delete which I would do in this case. E4024 needs to be counselled to expand his nominations. We need editors like this who methodically go through Commons identifying copyvio's. Not saying he's perfect but he can be coached. Gbawden (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
E4024 is persistently nominating stuff, many of which have problems, but their favoured rationale is "small image, no EXIF, not in use". Which is a problem as two of these are frequently untrue (1000px isn't "small" and several of these have been in use) and the other three just aren't valid reasons for deletion. If their claimed implication is that things are copyvios from elsewhere on the web, that's a reasonable suspicion, but they have to start showing some evidence for it (like a TinEye search). We do not need a 'bot script running over the whole of Commons and deleting everything with no EXIF, for no reason other than that.
Also, PCP was abandoned when we started hosting monkey selfies. Andy Dingley (talk)
We had a similar case with AshFriday who also used a repetitive and annoying nomination phrase and at the end of the AN discussion they were asked to change their approach Gbawden (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I support Gbawden's comments. E4024 has done useful work in identifying several clear and probable copyright violations. I have criticised several nominations for lack of clarity and failure to identify matching images with a web search. I have given some coaching which appears to have been well-received, and E4024 has sought my opinion on a few images. E4024 has complained of being 'Wikihounded' and may have interpreted this Village Pump discussion as targeting them. Counselling and coaching are the best approach here. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
These persistently baseless DRs have now got to the point where they seem to have driven a contributor off the project and they have requested all of their uploads to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Fernando6718

Fernando6718 has repeatedly uploaded copyright violations despite being warned by several users. Please delete their uploads and have him blocked. --Kuatrero (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kuatrero: you failed to warn them, which I've now done for you. Please warn people first and if they don't listen then come here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the need for warning them (once again) if they have a talk page cluttered with copyvio/no permission notices, but oh well. --Kuatrero (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@Kuatrero: Policy says that they need a formal warning to stop before we consider blocking. See COM:BLOCK for more info. Gbawden (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

TeamGeorgePBush

Inappropriate username. The name implies shared use of the account. FunnyMath (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done @FunnyMath: Implying shared use is not a violation of COM:UPOL. The username policy does require accounts that are named for individuals or organizations to verify their identity, however, this account has not edited in months. Accordingly, I see no reason to block the account at this time. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"Own work" abuse

Other than a few simple book covers, I guess all uploads by User:Շաքէ Մանկասարեան are falsely defined as "own work" as may be seen by the deletion notifications on their TP. This user has abused the "own work" claim in a rather long time despite many deletions. They seem not to be bothered by deletions as long as they are permitted to continue uploading similar problematic files. --E4024 (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@E4024: I notified them for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
How kind of you, many thanks! I already have enough notifications on their user page and I know they are not impressed of them at all. If I had the faintest hope that they would consider it, I would give them a warning. I think actual admins can better take care of this issue. --E4024 (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • While uploads by this user have been deleted, the claim that 'all uploads are are falsely defined as "own work"' is demonstrably false. Several uploads have OTRS permission. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk page protection against sustained homophobic abuse, transphobic abuse and personal attacks

Hi, at least one recent serial sock-puppeteer has been attacking Commons contributors that they appear to believe are LGBT+ identified. This has persisted and does create an actively hostile environment for our LGBT+ contributors. The attacks are using sock accounts and IP addresses. The attacks are not every day, but they seem persistent, and may be part of an off-wiki anti-LGBT+ and anti-Wikimedian campaign of harassment.

Though this is not our convention for user talk pages, at least for a period of time, could my own talk page be protected against Anon IP edits please, and this considered for other affected users who may wish it?

Reports within the LGBT+ User Group, give the perception of an uptick in anti-LGBT+ attacks in multiple language Wikimedia projects, so this may be a problem to remain aware of. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for your talkpage (3 months). IP 190.211.241.146 and Boredstank (talk · contribs) blocked.--Túrelio (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Hopefully it is one person and they'll get bored. --Fæ (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

User:ParisHistorian

ParisHistorian has uploaded multiple photos that are copyright violations. --I dream of horses (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I dream of horses these were images from newspapers and public domain pages, I also referenced the sources. --ParisHistorian (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@I dream of horses: the images have been deleted now, as being without evidence of a permission. However, as they seem to be good-faith-uploads (uploader did not claim to be the author), further administrative action is not necessary. --Túrelio (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Could some experienced editors give a look at Catoze (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) uploads? Many of the uploads they claim to be "own work" are clearly not own work. Regards.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 03:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Laisbianchessi12

Laisbianchessi12 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) is an obvious Sockpuppets of Irisvalverde1. The user's M.O. is uploading obviously copyvio photographs of certain female celebrities. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@E4024: it’s from Instagram and from a long-term sockpuppet so I think speedy is fine. Ytoyoda (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ytoyoda and E4024: I tagged it as such.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked her indefinitely as sockpuppet. All her uploads are deleted and she is even tagged as sock of Iris Valverde. Taivo (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Lukecody

Lukecody (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has repeatedly uploaded copyright violations, has removed copyvio template ([49], [50]), has used a sockpuppet Imageneswikipe (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) to upload the same photos. Ovruni (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the master for a week and sockpuppet indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

sockpuppet of Luis camilo álvarez vega

Please block user:Lucho249 as it's yet another sock of the aforementioned user. They've also edited using 190.85.46.177. --Kuatrero (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 Comment I blocked Lucho indefinitely as sockpuppet, but I did not revert anything. Taivo (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Taivo: They're back at it, adding incorrect "no permission" tags. see Special:Contributions/190.145.173.86. --Kuatrero (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Now also using IP 181.48.34.162. --Kuatrero (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done? I blocked both IP-s for a week and semi-protected a lot of files for a month. Taivo (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

E4024 2

I don't think I've ever interacted with @E4024: before, but while default sorting embassy categories (see Category:Embassies in Washington, D.C. as an example), this user reverted one of the edits without explanation. I asked on their talk page and my edit was reverted and this was the response. Since I assume any further questions will be reverted there, I'll ask here for a second opinion. APK (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Please inform the users you complain about. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I pinged you. That's why you knew this was here and commented just now. Judging by your recent actions, my notification on your talk page would have been quickly reverted. APK (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Why are you spending in vain my time instead of looking and seeing why you were reverted? Another question: Will you bring here everybody that reverts your mistakes? I would rather have categorized several files now instead of writing here. Leave me in peace, please. --E4024 (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I asked why you reverted a valid categorization change and you didn't give an answer other than a rude edit summary, hence why I'm brining it here. If you have a reason, it would save you time in the long run to just explain why. APK (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@APK: Notification on the user talk page is required by Commons:Blocking policy. See also section #E4024 above.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
In case anyone asks, I notified after @Jeff G.: commented above, but the message was of course removed. APK (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Edits should be explained if they need it, and reversion should always be assumed to need explanation. If someone asks on your talk page for an explanation, then that certainly needs an explanation. E4024 did give one in the edit summary, but that's recognised to be a far from good way of doing it, and the message was also brusque and unhelpful.
That said, your change was wrong and the sort order is much better as "Moldova", as it was. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
More to the point IMO, this kind or sorting should be achieved with category-specific sort keys, rather than by applying a DEFAULTSORT. In Moldovan categories, sorting under Moldova is unhelpful; there and in most other cats one would expect to find it under Embassy. (I haven’t looked at the involved trees, but if there‘s a cat for Moldovan embassies, the appropriate sort key there would be Washington, D.C. or United States.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: the edit I made kept the Molodova sorting for all of the categories. The 'Embassies in Washington' was a copy & paste error, but the remaining sort was fine. Look at Category:Sheridan-Kalorama Historic District and you'll see the Moldova embassy category is now the only one not properly categorized. (now fixed) But yes, if someone asks about an edit, I don't think it's too much to ask for an answer that's not basically because I said so. APK (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I corrected the Embassies in Washington part, but changed it to match the other categories. I would just appreciate people not furthering the reputation that Commons is a very combative place and be open to explaining their edits. That's why I came here. After many years I know when it's pointless to try and interact with someone without third party intervention. APK (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The only cat where I can see "Moldova, Embassy of" as being a better sort order than the default was the one from which you removed it.
Also, it is typical that an edit with an error in it is likely to be reverted in toto, even if one part would have been useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
We'll agree to disagree. APK (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_88&oldid=574054039"