Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 92

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

Synthwave.94

This user insists that Category:Danse de la fontaine émergente must be deleted because there’s no files in it, even though its existence provides a useful role in keeping copyright violations away from Commons, by means of its contents (FoP warning etc.). This user repeatedly reverted this category page back to their edit containing only a speedy deletion warning, even (in this edit) after a {{Empty category}} tag was added. This user seems to value rote makework above actual useful content in Commons, while being bad at even that: The presence of {{Empty category}} precludes deletion for empty cat pages. This user needs to be reminded, again, about the goals of Commons. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Per Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#Namespace-specific, unused and empty categories must be deleted. This is why I asked for a speedy deletion. You can search by yourself on Wikimedia Commons and you won't find anything related to this category. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Just like you, I can read policy. Unlike you, I am aware of its context. Unlike you, I know that policy is a tool for the project’s goals, not a goal in itself. In a case like this, deletion would be always a net negative, and if policy would demand it, then policy should be changed. However policy does cover exceptions, as provided by {{Empty category}}. Which you ignored, and now you’re here. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
No one should keep adding a speedy tag after it has been disputed, it needs to go to a deletion discussion venue (CfD in this case). I have opened a CfD, there was one in 2015 which resulted in it being kept. Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#Namespace-specific doesn't say it must be, only may be. Bidgee (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
^What Bidgee said^. If your speedy has been disputed then your next venue would be XFD (in this case CFD). Why do we care about an empty cat when there's millions upon millions of images that need either checking or categorising ?. Time spent here really could be better spent on actual things that matter here. Anyway Bidgee has created the CFD so I would now consider this issue closed/moot. –Davey2010Talk 13:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

User:ListeningBronco

ListeningBronco substantially changed an updated version of the Artsakh location map that I've made [1], I informed the user of COM:OW and the problematic nature of the edits in the edit summary [2] and I reverted the file back. As ListeningBronco changed it back again, I reverted the file again and gave a COM:OW warning on the user's talk page, which was swiftly reverted along with the file being changed again. I don't want to edit war, so I would appreciate some assistance. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

AntonSamuel did not respond to my attempt to solve the dispute at the file talk page despite pinging him[3]. Left me a warning at my talk page and now opened a notice about me without any discussion. ListeningBronco (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Mind you AntonSamuel opened this dispute after being pinged into a discussion without responding. Despite what their timeline of events sounds like. ListeningBronco (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe the explanation regarding the map and COM:OW I provided earlier was sufficient - if you want to create a radically different map, create another file please. I would appreciate if someone would restore the file [4] as I suspect ListeningBronco would revert it again if I restored the map myself, as he recently blanked his talk page a second time around [5], removing my notification and a recent warning by @Jeff G.: . AntonSamuel (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Rubin16: Hi! Could you possibly assist in this matter? AntonSamuel (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe COM:OW is a sufficient explanation because I believe this matter is regarding a content dispute rather than an overwrite issue. If I am to upload a new file AntonSamuel would once again oppose the change since he doesn't want it as explained in his edit summary. So it has to be discussed between the two of us. I am still waiting for you to join me at the discussion in the file talk page instead of pinging admins here for your dispute. ListeningBronco (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
If you mean that I would oppose the use of your map version on English Wikipedia - yes, since I don't see it as an improvement. However, for the matter of this file COM:OW is pretty clear: "As a result, the basic rule is that existing files should not be overwritten with substantially different content, whilst minor improvements should overwrite the previous version (but see below for exceptions). When in doubt, or to resolve inter-user conflicts, upload as a new file." AntonSamuel (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok then I'm self reverting and hoping that you will join to the discussion in English Wikipedia. ListeningBronco (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

E4024

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Meh. E4024 is annoying and can be like a bull terrier that won't let go when it gets stuck into something. He is a useful editor though - en:WP:Trout would be a better sanction than a block Gbawden (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
✓ Closed per Gbawden.--Túrelio (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

User:English Roger mass uploading and no categories

English Roger (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has been mass uploading media from Flickr using flickr2commons, all of the uploads are lacking any usable categories (not including the maintenance categories attached to templates), I have given them a notice on the talk page but the latest uploads are still lacking categories, along with the ones they have already uploaded. They seem to be rather experienced in using flickr2commons (knows about PD-NASA and uses it, rather than the cc-by-sa-2.0), and is up to over 5,000 uploads since 1 May (the day the account was created) and actively uploading for around 13 hours straight with ~10 files per minute at times. It seems to be more like a mass dump, with no checking for duplicates and any copyright issues (FOP, TOO ect). Basing on what I have seen, it seems like quite likely a sock, but not sure who. Bidgee (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Was there really no agreement about limiting Flickr2Commons to more experienced users?
Examining File:Montemurlo landscape (37681922742).jpg which would have very obvious categories, or even for the most lazy person could have a project category, is unacceptable use of this powerful tool.
Someone please switch off the upload right unless this person has a plan to go back and do some housekeeping, and then actually does some housekeeping.
P.s. Commons:Flickr2Commons#Step_6:_Add_categories is not hard to understand, not bothering to read the manual is not an excuse for disrupting the project. --Fæ (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Based on the behaviour and username this looks like a sock of Allknowingroger, a.k.a. RogerNiceEyes, EyesRoger et al. See here. Spicy (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I've indeffed as a sock. Certainly, restriction of F2C to experienced users would be helpful for the general problem of uncurated mass uploads without useful categories, descriptions, and filenames. However, there are also experienced users who abuse F2C in exactly this manner, so any policy will have to deal with their behavior as well. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Ksh.andronexus

Ksh.andronexus is only engaged in uploading images violating copyright only. The editor is not following Commons rules even being warned previously. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete User Account and photos

Hello, I am Jaume Aragay, I have created this account "JaumeAr" with which I have uploaded the following pictures:

  • File:Mag Stigman in Barcelona.jpg|Mag_Stigman_in_Barcelona
  • File:Mag Stigman in Barcelona 2.jpg|Mag_Stigman_in_Barcelona_2
  • File:Mag Stigman in Barcelona 3.jpg|Mag_Stigman_in_Barcelona_3

I ask you to please delete this account, because I have another account called "jaumearagay" and I could not find the password of "jaumearagay" so I created the account "JaumeAr", which I now formally request to be deleted. As for Mag Stigman's photographs, if you consider it convenient, they can be deleted and I will upload them again with my user account "jaumearagay" to appear as the author of them. Thank you very much --JaumeAr (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello JaumeAr, Unfortunately accounts cannot be deleted - You can put a note on your userpage stating your previous account however as long as you don't use that account you wont be blocked.
Photos cannot be transferred between accounts either and files as far as I know are never deleted and reuploaded in this way (and IMGO they shouldn't be because you can quite easily forget your password to your new account so to preserve history etc the files should remain). Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Lion7777scp

The user is only engaged in uploading copyright images on commons. Has been warned but still uploading. Thank you.Run n Fly (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done - blocked and deleted contributions, thank you rubin16 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Venus Isabelle Palermo

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done rubin16 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@Rubin16: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Urisze

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Túrelio as deleting Admin for all of this user's previous contributions.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done: deleted and blocked rubin16 (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@rubin16: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@rubin16: The user is block evading as Abdelkg (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) .   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done, thank you rubin16 (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@rubin16: Thanks again, and you're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@rubin16: The user is block evading as Abdelhaas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) .   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
✓ processed, thank you rubin16 (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@rubin16: Thanks yet again, and you're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

E4024 again

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Matthew Ronalds

User:Matthew Ronalds is engaged in uploading copyright images after repeated warnings. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Special fans Editz

User:Special fans Editz is engaged in uploading copyright images after repeated warnings. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Indefed by @Elcobbola rubin16 (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Time for final warnings and indefinite blocks?

When seeking to block a new user, Boons1k (talk · contribs), is 13 minutes between a "first warning" and a week's block long enough, or should admins wait the full 15 minutes?

Elcobbola, would you care to explain your actions here? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

As you appear unaware of our software's ability to track edit history:
COM:BP says "For blocks based on disruptive behaviour, such as vandalism, repeated copyright violations and manual promotional activities, ensure that the user has been appropriately warned" (bold in original). As of the 09:34, 24 April 2021 block, the following notices/warnings had been issued: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Blocks are preventative not punitive, and there was every reason to believe a block was needed to stop the upload of copyvios and prompt, finally, consultation of our policies. Boons1k could have, of course, requested unblock at any time. If you have a policy cite that more than 13 minutes from the first notice to the block, by all means provide it. Otherwise, the lack of even an alleged policy breach here is telling; I, and other admins, are not bound by your fanciful personal concoctions or delusions. Our policies and guidelines can be found here. Эlcobbola talk 03:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll ignore the pejorative snipe at me, and your obtuse misunderstanding of the issue here, and point it out more clearly: Boons1k is a new editor here, with a handful of uploads and no interaction with other editors. They have made mistakes here in uploading non-free content, and we know that is a perennially complicated issue where most new editors do make mistakes. It doesn't even appear to be at all deliberate (we've left some of their uploads undeleted, as they're OK) and it doesn't appear there's any problem with their uploads, other than the rights issue.
Yet you have turned this into an opportunity to get a new editor blanked and blocked. Hooray. Serious admin bizniz.
You have acted so reasonably here: you have issued "three warnings". What a terrible editor they must be, to have ignored "all three strikes". No. This is nonsense. You issued those three warnings, and the resultant block, effectively simultaneously. This is not a progression of warnings, intended to explain the issue (which is indeed something we have to observe), it's just vindictively hunting for any editor you can get a block onto. If you don't understand the problem with that, you shouldn't be an admin here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done I've taken a look at Boons1k's uploads (I'm native RU speaker), and I agree they are all highly likely to be copyvio. Nothing wrong with the warnings and the block. --A.Savin 13:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I deleted last remaining uploads of Boons1k as copyvios. Case closed. Taivo (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Flowerrenmar45

Flowerrenmar45 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - spam-only account, obvious evasion of Limpiadomaryrose9 (talk · contribs) (Renmar Arnejo). See also w:bcl:Special:Redirect/logid/39924 and w:ceb:Special:Redirect/logid/10589609. —Hasley 16:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ezarateesteban 17:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

User:LokkLamora

LokkLamora (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Can anyone patrol/verify the user's contributions license for uploading photos from Russian government as {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} is valid or not. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@LokkLamora: Thanks for pointing that attribution. Everything is Okay then. Run n Fly (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Uploading non free files and using them across many wikis

I don't know whether this is the right place to tell but still telling. This is about User Talk:Anketa Maharana. They uploaded 5 files from different websites which had no sign that proved they are licensed under CC. Then they used those files across many wikis in articles of the actresses in those languages. It requires someone with global rollback to undo their contributions so that when these files get deleted then the affected articles are not left without image. User:Ytoyoda has placed a tag on those images, so I wrote the same thing about rollback on their talk page but got no response. -- Parnaval (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have warned them which is probably the best thing at this stage. If they persist we can look at further measures Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Parnaval and Gbawden: They have also been editing as 103.70.199.167. I reverted some changes and tagged all the remaining files as copyvios; background updates from Wikidata may take some time.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gbawden and Jeff G.: My main motive of raising this issue was not warning or deleting, I was mainly concerned that who will go across more than 20 wikis to add the image that previously existed there as CommonsDelinkerbot only removes deleted files, then those articles would be left without any image. -- Parnaval (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Parnaval: I bypassed most of that work by reverting a couple of changes at Wikidata. When I find warnable actions and copyvios, I act. I'm sorry if that wasn't your intent.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Oh no ! Why you saying sorry ? You did the right thing. I was just saying that I could have simply tagged all of them for copyvio but (I think) to revert those edits someone with something like global rollback is required, that's the reason I reported here -- Parnaval (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Parnaval: Thanks. Please understand that the reason 2 of those files were on >20 wikis is that they were on Wikidata and linked from there using Wikidata-related templates on most of those >20 wikis. So, changing 2 entries on Wikidata removed most of them. I replaced the rest.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gbawden: All of their uploads have been deleted as copyvios; they are NOTHERE.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Noted. No futher uploads since warning. Policy states that they should be warned first. I realise they created problems on other wikis - what sanction do you propose? I think the warning was enough at this stage Gbawden (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gbawden: Sadly, it appears 0/6 live edits is not yet good enough. My requested lock was denied per m:Steward requests/Global/2021-05#Global lock for Anketa Maharana, so I was looking for more justification.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Problems with Elcobbola

Dear administrators, good evening.

I'm the former user SandyShores03, and I'm writing you from a public connection because I'm worried about the way in which I have been judged by Elcobbola.

This is the situation: In late April of this year, 2021, my brother, who also had worked for this project with the account HefePine23 (talk · contribs), uploads a non-free picture of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, that even I admit myself that it was a very serious mistake from my brother, who should have examined better the picture in question and left it without uploading to Commons.

After this bad upload, Elcobbola, blocked my brother for license laundering and nominated for deletion that picture, in addition of all the works he uploaded. This is a sanction that, for my point of view, seems to be correct, and that in this case, Elcobbola has carried out his/her work correctly, since my brother had clearly committed an important infraction and clearly it is not possible to pretend to miss details like these.

My brother acknowledges (and I say this on his behalf) his mistake and, after that, he withdrew from Commons, something that I recommended to him to make clear that he had no intention of returning to the project and that he did not make these mistakes with bad faith.

But the problem begins when, some days after this situation, I (SandyShores03), after reviewing and learning about this problems and find links and websites and photographs which have more evidences for Public Domain, I decided to fix the problems of the pictures related with RMS Titanic and other famous ships of the early 20th century that were uploaded by my brother, with the intention of avoiding the massive deletion that would affect several wikis. After fix one of the files, Elcobbola blocked my account, declared it as a Sockpuppet of my retired brother's account and, in situ and without a discussion similar of created for my brother files, deleted automatically all my contributions which I uploaded during the last year, a situation which affected a lot of Wikis like Spanish, French, Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, German or English Wikipedias, only for my IP adress is the same as the same used by my brother. This is because I live with my brother, but we were working separately. It is true that there were some times when we've worked together but no always. I see this an unfair decission by Elcobbola, an opinion that also has got the user Andy Dingley (talk · contribs), who left a message to Elcobbola in his talk page, a message that had never got any answer from Elcobbola.

I'm according with Andy Dingley that it is sure that I probably have uploaded some file that didn't have the correct procedures for license, and, if I'd commeted this error, I'm sorry for it. But, for the rest, those photos were taken originally by Robert Welch and some others were a JPG versions of Tiff photos uploaded from Royal Museums Greenwich Collections and another by Library of Congress. Another ones, were my own colourization work, like another photos which still alvailable in Commons and never were nomiated for deletion.

When I was going to talk with Elcobbola about this, I couldn't open a discussion in my own talk page and another user's discussion pages to contact with Elcobbola.

Some time after, with an anonymous account, I'd added a request for my unblocking in my talk page, explaining the situation and the conditions that I claim for you as admins. And added that if you don't accept for my return, I'll accept it and I'll declare retired like my brother, but few time after that, Elcobbola reverted my nomimation for 2 times, and, without an answer that explain his actions, he protected forever my own talk page.

I known that this case won't require possibly the laws for write here, but I need an impartial point about this, because I'm a good faith person and I'm alvailable for talk friendly with another user for sort a problem out. And I think that I've been judged with a partial position from an administrator that, although he was doing his work, I think he didn't be open to talk and known more about this and proceed as appropriately as possible.

And, before conclussion, I leave here a message for Elcobbola: Elcobbola (talk · contribs), please, I know that you are doing your work but please, before block me again, review this and and reconsider at least restore my images and, if you prefer, open a talk page for deletion and let other users analyze the situation and rule their verdict. It is my only request that I ask for you and the rest of the adminis.
Please, consider it, I'm not my brother, and my only intention is improve the reliability and quality of Wikimedia projects, I trust your consideration and your empathy regarding this.

In conclussion, like I've left previously for Elcobbola, I don't care if the community of administrators of Commons declare that I'm not able to return to contribute with the project. I only want to looking for a more impartial and objective point of view about my case.

Cordial greetings for all.

--SandyShores03, with the anonymous account: 176.87.17.190 19:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

SandyShores03 is Confirmed to be related to HefePine23. As this is a {{Checkuserblock}}, pinging @Jameslwoodward: , @Krd: , @Magog the Ogre: , and @Trijnstel: to confirm. Technical evidence suggests the w:WP:LITTLEBROTHER excuse above is yet another of the user's innumerable untruths, but is not relevant as meatpuppetry is also an abusive use of multipole accounts. HefePine23 has a significant history of copyright violations and Flickrwashing. Despite a clear warning of the issue in October 2020, HefePine23 continued to upload random Titanic images to Flickr and to use Flickr to support purported CC claims. An en.wiki admin, @DrKay: , pinged me 22. April 2021 notifying me of the same, and I blocked the account with the explicit notice that indefinite is not infinite and an affirmative acknowledgement that this practice is unacceptable was needed. Rather than engage or request unblocking, SandyShores03 emerged and began immediately uploading images with the same issues, same license laundering, and same lack of evidence. This is, frankly, not a difficult case; the utter obtuseness regarding copyright, Commons policy, and abuse of multiple accounts (see the unabashed acknowledgement of block evasion above) is astonishing. Эlcobbola talk 19:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
As has appeared at the top of my take page since 2013, "Comments that impugn or otherwise fail to be polite and to assume good faith will not receive a response." That you say, for example, "There is a cryptic comment about checkuser in the block log, but again, no linked discussion of this and I'm unaware that you have access to checkuser tools or their non-public results" to checkuser (!!!) tells us all we need to know about how informed your opinions are. Indeed, and further, that you do not assume good faith ("they didn't edit for a week, conveniently giving the DR long enough to run that it might be closable") and offer this sort shameless nonsense is ample demonstration of why no response was needed. Эlcobbola talk 03:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree. User is lying about his identity and persisting in obfuscation rather than reforming. This is not a particularly difficult call. RBI. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I do not care (and should not care) about the identities of the people behind the accounts. Per our clear policy on socking, alternate accounts are permissible. Accounts become socks if they are harmful and used for disruptive purposes. What these accounts have done is to upload valuable images, >100 years old. They have a clear value here and a plausible claim to PD because of age. If any do not meet PD, then that's a task where we have to check each one carefully and filter them out. There is no excuse here for blanket bulk deletions, from either account.
If there is any case to be made for "socking" since that (the IP making an unblock request was simply reverted, then excluded from the page) then that's a technical misdemeanour by a user who has been poorly treated, at most, and still doesn't pass into "disruptive" behaviour.
I would also question why you kept repeatedly ignoring requests for clarification here from an independent editor. If you hide behind, "Oh, the editors are being beastly to me" as an excuse to ignore legitimate questions over harmful deletions and bulk blocks justified by secret enquiries that can't be visible to other editors, then you need a thicker skin if you're to be an admin here. Let me make it plain: if you want to be able to block editors at whim for unchallengable, secret reasons, then we as editors demand that you will explain this on request. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually, that is not correct. The reason that policy requires that a Wiki have more than one checkuser (or none) is that we can check each other. If two (or in this case three -- User:elcobbola,User:Magog the Ogre, and me -- checkusers confirm bad behavior, then in most cases we are not allowed to explain and are never required to do so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Then just what is the reason for the bulk deletions here? What is the justification for any use of checkuser? If these are DRs per copyright issues, then fair enough (they weren't DRed, they were simply deleted en masse), but that needs each one to be looked at separately. There was no socking here: any sharing of accounts / use of an alternate account was not disruptive, thus is no part of socking, thus did not justify a checkuser in the first place.
Saying afterwards "The Cabal supports me, for Secret Reasons" doesn't cut it. Fine, no-one else gets to see checkuser logs. But any checkuser should give an explanation as to what the disruptive socking was that justified this action - there has been nothing here. Also Elcobbola refuses to even respond to questions. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • After observing the comments and carefully reading each one of them, I appreciate the participation regarding my case.

I personally thank Elcobbola for, even if it is, having exposed the situation from his position as checkuser, and with a more objective point of view, which was I needed to be at peace. I also thank the checkuser Jameslwoodward for his participation and presentation of details that I and my brother and colleague, HefePine23, were unaware of because we are mere amateur users (that is, we've only been in the project for 1 year and there have been things that we've been able to go unnoticed). I also thank the rollbacker and patroller Andy Dingley for his participation and clarification of the subject and for supporting the evidence that my images were almost all of the public domain (although I've made mistakes when placing the license on Flickr, which I apologize myself personally and with all my soul).

As I have said before, my intention was to know better the way in which events were carried out, something that had not happened at the time and that had initially puzzled me.

Before concluding, I understand the distrust of the chekusers, but it is true what I am saying that I am HefePine23's brother, and I regret not having initially seen that the collaboration of users from the same family nucleus was not allowed either.

Although it is frowned upon, I swear to God and my family that I didn't carry out my actions with the aim of vandalizing and damaging Wikipedia or other Wiki projects, quite the contrary.

As I stated at the time I opened this discussion, I declare myself, like my brother, totally retired not only from Commons, but also from the rest of Wiki projects, and I assure that you will never see me here again except as in quality of reader / visitor to consult and carry out some research for a personal project.

I regret my mistakes and my ignorance, as well as having given the feeling of being a criminal and a vandal.

All kind regards and thank you very much for your participation.

Until forever.

--SandyShores03 (talk · contribs). With the anonymous account 79.144.245.196 10:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC).

  •  Comment Deleting a large number of files which are not obvious copyvios, and without a proper DR is not OK. I suggest undeleting them and opening a proper DR based on evidence. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
     Comment @Elcobbola: would you please consider undoing your deletions of non-obvious copyvios, per above? @SandyShores03 I'm sorry but I have to agree; you have a history of copyright violations and the fact that you continue to try to wiggle out of accountability tells me you're not a good fit here. Alternatively, if you're willing to take the L and promise not to do it again, I'm sure we could find a mentor for you. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs)
    "[N]on-obvious copyvios" doesn't parse; a file uploaded through license laundering is defined by policy to be a copyright violation (COM:CSD#F6: "Content uploaded via license laundering techniques is a copyright violation"). Further, per COM:EVID, "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate [...] that the file is in the public domain" (underline added) and "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain." (underline added) I would be happy to restore any file for which the policy required appropriate evidence is provided. I don't see that any has yet been offered. "The picture is 100 years old so I uploaded it to Flickr as public domain" is not adequate, and the significant discussion (which Yann above suggested and supported, by the way) led to the use of 120 years for unknown authors, which is the claim for the vast majority of these. Early 1910s + 120 = Early 2030s. We need evidence; we're getting truthiness. Эlcobbola talk 15:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Elcobbola: These files may be copyright violations, or not. We have proper DRs precisely to assess that collectively. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Dear Magog the Ogre, I'm sorry for my errors but I'n not to tell the lie that I'm the same person that my brother. I'm sorry for that.

However, I'm willing to take the L, like you told before, and I promise that, not only not do it again, also ask you or the user that you consider for my mentor for check the procedure. If this is possible I whish it.

Moreover, my best and important whish is that my own colourization works and the clearly public domain pictures could be recovered. I don't care that after that a deletion request will be opened, but I prefer that they would be recovered. Also, I promise you and all Wiki admins that I'm going to try change.

Best regards for all.

--SandyShores03 (talk · contribs), with the anonymous account 79.144.245.196 18:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Dear @Elcobbola, I regret not having previously seen the information posted before responded to Magog the Ogre, and I apologize for being slow to reply here, as I have been busy with personal matters.

As for what it says, yes, it is true that there were images in which I forgot to place the link of the original page and put the necessary evidence, but I think that if the images were recovered and they allowed me to return with my account to Commons I'm sure that, with the help of a mentor like Magog the Ogre proposed, I could get results within 2 weeks. Of course, if I did not find anything, I would nominate those images for deletion myself, no problem for that. However, due to the fact that it was deleted, I have to recheck the original links of several of the photographs, so I commented on a period of more or less 2 weeks.

In addition, I would like to present here the cases of images where I had indicated all the best I could regarding their original origin and their author in the cases that were known:

  • The first, the one in this diagram (uploaded in my first account; because later I created a secondary account specifically for Titanic and her sister ships interiors and passengers), originally created and published on Deviantart, by Michael C. Brady.

Certainly, before uploading it, I modified it so that only the ship in question would appear. A short time later, the author asked me if I could put his name so that it would be verified that he was the creator. I replied that of course, and, to make sure if he preferred to delete the Commons image, I asked him, to which he replied via e-mail and, in case you don't believe me, and it is obvious and indisputable that is it, I quote here the answer that the author had sent me at November 27th, 2020:

Hi SandyShores03 (sic. I don't prefer to show here my real name, which he had written this mail),

Thanks for writing back to me! I did the drawings back in 2012 and wanted them to be available for free online - just so long as my name was attached. (...) Don't worry about removing the images that won't be necessary. So long as my name is attached like this «By Michael C. Brady» it should be fine. Thanks and I hope you are keeping safe and well

It is possible, also, that I had put bad the license of the file, but if you allow me to return with my account, and knowing the author's position, I will can fix the problems of this file.

  • The second, is about some files of the Bedford Lemere and Company Collection, the most of them alvailable for all in the Royal Museums Greenwich Collection. Some of this photos were uploaded by Fae some years ago, but as TIFF versions. I had uploaded as JPG versions. Another of these photos, although we don't have here a TIFF version, there also in RMG's Collection. Here the photos that I said:
    1) With TIFF in Commons: I, II, III and IV. Also, I uploaded a JPG version of this file, but with direct form to Commons, not Flickr, and it was also deleted. I know that we have currently a JPG version, but cropped and with low quality. I think that, if you allow me return to the project, I can upload it as a better version.
    2) Without TIFF in Commons but also from RMG's Collection: I and II
    3) Not in RMG's Collection but taken by Bedford Lemere and Co.: only this (I think that I put in this that was taken by Robert Welch, but after, a member of Encyclopedia Titanica's group told me that it was from Bedford Lemere and Co. If this is restore, I'll change the name and put the correct info).
  • The third, and most important, for files of White Star Line and Harland and Wolff Collection, alvailable at the National Museums Northern Ireland. The 96-97% of they were taken by Robert John Welch, official photographer of the shipyard, who died in 1936.

I think that they are the most importants before here in Commons we have another photos of him, not published by myself or by my brother and are here for some years. Now, here the links:
1)Robert Welch's photos: I, II (with this I think that I forgot to put the original link, but I can find and put it if this file is restored), III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII (this is the original upload, which I'd taken from Pinterest, but if this is recovered, I will upload the original version and link), XVIII, IX and XX (with this, is a colured version created by myself. If I can re-upload as my own work, better, but an Encyclopedia Titanica's member and friend told me that Welch had taken the original picture. Furthermore, I didn't found the original at NMNI's Collection).
2)Photos of White Star Line Collection, alvailable also at NMNI's gallery: I and II.

  • And for conclussion, these files, which are cropped versions and original black and white version in one of the cases, and coloured in two of the cases, of files that already existing in Commons.

Now, the cases:

I) Images coloured by myself: 1.Colourized SS Imperator, a version of this, from the Library of Congress.
2.Ss Vaterland-Leviathan_in_colour, created as a coloured version of this. I took this photo from Commons and I'd colourized with Pic Monkey.

II) Original black and white versions: RMS Olympic Radio 1913, the original of this. I took it from the version uploaded in 26 August 2009, at 7:07 P.M. and I'd restored a little bit with Pic Monkey.

III) Cropped versions: 1.First Class Cabin C-64, cropped version of this. (Also, I see that another user cropped this photo after Elcobbola deleted my version. If mine is recovered, please, revert this to it's original version)
2.Titanic B-52-54-56 Parlor Suites Private Deck, cropped and restored version of this. (And also, modified after mine was deleted. If my version is recovered, please, revert this as it's original version).
3.RMS Titanic in Belfast 1912, retouched and cropped a little bit by myself. I took the photograph from this, alvailable in Commons since 2016.

And that's all.

I won't comment on anything else about the rest of the images that I uploaded, although some of those are my own work because I colored them myself, but it is true that I didn't put the original link, so I prefer to leave them without uploading or requesting their recovery until that I manage to locate the original pages (that I have all cataloged in favorites).

I hope now I can help. Again I regret not having consulted an expert before.

I appreciate your prompt response and best regards for all.

--SandyShores03 (talk · contribs), with the anonymous account 79.144.245.196 16:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Flaspec

  • User: Flaspec (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  • Reasons for reporting: Flaspec is deliberately misattributing the sources of the maps. First, they uploaded copies of the maps that I uploaded and described them as Extracted directly from [image of one of the sources](which is a lie, as I extracted them from the original sources, combined them, updated the names, etc). When I saw that, I asked for advice on what to do (without naming anyone). King of Hearts was kind enough to point out the fact that I could correct the attribution, which I did without making a fuss.[13][14][15] Unfortunately, Flaspec restored their misattribution, accused me of removing the original source, and added more baseless POV to the source section.[16][17][18] Furthermore, their edit on File:CIA WorldFactBook-Political world.svg which is described as "CIA World Factbook Political World Map" also doesn't make sense. Instead of uploading the new CIA map (since the map is marked as updateable), they changed a tiny part of the old map (the only part that is of interest to them) and left the date and everything else. So now, we have a CIA (supposedly from 2015) that doesn't look like the original (here's the 2017 pdf of the original). I'm not that familiar with Commons' policies, but this does not look right to me. Your advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
First of all, my advice is for you to calm yourself down. Secondly, the file you uploaded is based on an outdated webarchive version, mine is based on the latest version from the CIA website (hence I repeat: do not remove the original source). I noticed how you keep censoring people into adapting the older version of the map just because it does not cater to far-right sahrawi nationalism.[19] Care you to explain? --Flaspec (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 Info 1) Their maps are copies of mine, which in turn are derivatives of various maps (anyone with a minimum of knowledge and interest in the subject would notice). 2) After looking at this discussion that they've had with an IP (who's been stalking me), it is clear that this is was done intentionally, and since they are throwing all kind of accusations around, I would also like to draw your attention to a lesson in cross-wiki POV pushing (written in Moroccan Arabic. I will gladly ping an admin from the ar.wp who would confirm the translation) that Flaspec gave to EdDakhla (I'm 100% confident that they are behind the IP). Here, Flaspec told them exactly how to target all the Wikis (except the en.wp and es.wp, because according to them, those two are "difficult" and full of so and so), and following their own advice, they uploaded File:MAR orthographic.svg 2 days later and added it to 45 wikis in one sitting (replacing all the stable maps in the process). M.Bitton (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment I'm the one who is stalking you or are you the one who's been stalking every Moroccan editor ever to come into existence? (As you did with Flaspec on Libya Orthographic Projection and EdDakhla and some of their IP's). Otherwise, there is no other way of you knowing about the discussion I had with Flaspec (simply to give a much-needed warning about you) unless you were stalking me (which you obviously are) because I never pinged you, and neither did anybody else. Please, don't accuse others of things you are just (of not more) of being guilty of. We all know about your strong Algerian and Polisario nationalism, its clear as day. 204.108.148.73 17:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC) Blocked LTA. M.Bitton (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Warning sign Warning @M.Bitton, stop accusing everyone, this discussion is about the CIA map so do not change the subject. Please answer my question above for this conversation to move forward. Thank you. --Flaspec (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 Info Since you started the accusations, I have every right to point out the lesson in cross-wiki POV pushing that you gave to others and the fact that you followed your own advice and added your POV map to 45 wikis in one go. M.Bitton (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@M.Bitton This is Commons not Wikipedia, you should learn the difference. Answer my question please! --Flaspec (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Stop pinging me, I'm not interested in what you have to say me and I certainly do not answer questions coming from you of all people, the editor who used Commons to give others a lesson in cross-wiki POV pushing and who added their POV map to 45 wikis in one go. M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Flaspec's behaviour aside, I'm still none the wiser on what to do with regard to the concerns raised in the first paragraph. Can someone please offer some advice? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Mateus2019 & Admin Multichill

Multichill (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) This guy mobs me. He revoked my file mover rights with the reason that I have had not followed the file rename guidelines and that I have been performed a personal attack. This is not true in my perspective. By the way, everyone is free to express themselves. He thinks, that I am stupid. This is allowed to do that by Dutch/German law. Also, I am allowed to express my thoughts here as I am a citizen of Germany. In addition, I am allowed to react harsh, after he was not willing to reply to a specific issue regarding renaming a SINGLE file.(diff) A personal attack is also not a valid reason to revoke user roles. As I am being badly mobbed since 2009 in my job, I have learned to intervene in an early stage. Please stop this kiddo and undo the role change. I would like to work on in peace with as little frustration possible. Stay healthy @all, --Mateus2019 (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

For background User_talk:Mateus2019#Renaming_15_year_old_uploads & User_talk:Multichill#Machtsmisbruik. Multichill (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment As I see it then it is not Multichill that is calling Mateus2019 stupid. It is the other way around. Also COM:FR says that "Uploaders often have schemas naming their files; moving files might break them.... Commons aims to provide stable filenames as there might be external file clients and file moving involves significant human and computing resources. Thus renaming should be used with caution." So I agree with Multichill that the main rule is do not rename files unless there is a good reason to do so. --MGA73 (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Good removal of FR privilege. Mateus2019 should familiarize themselves with FR #4. If FR #2 and #4 conflict with each other, #4 should prevail. pandakekok9 06:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me, that the revenge action by Multichill is extremely overexaggerating which harms teamwork spirit, causes frustration and is not respecting 10,000s hours of time + effort paired with good faith performance by myself. I would like to see a decent decision here. Mobbing (bossing) should not — in any circumstances — be tolerated at Wikimedia Commons Projects. It ain't also not playground to fool around with roles on false or disputed grounds. We need a clearly statement ("code of conduct") how we interact socially, by the way. This is not the Wikimedia Commons community, I have had signed up for 15 years ago. Best wishes, --Mateus2019 (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mateus2019, ich schreibe mal auf deutsch, um jegliches event. sprachlich bedingte Mißverständnis zu vermeiden. Dein Kommunikationsverhalten gegenüber Multichill ist unterirdisch. Wenn dich ein erfahrener langjähriger Nutzer auf ein Problem mit deinen Edits anspricht und dabei auch die konkreten Gründe der Kritik nennt, ist "are you kdding me" eine völlig unangemessene Antwort. Man muss nicht immer gleich einer Meinung sein, aber zumindest die Gründe des anderen mal zur Kenntnis nehmen. Genau dies tust du in der Diskussion auf deiner Disku jedoch nicht. Vielmehr ignorierst du die Argumente von Multichill, lässt nur deine eigenen Gründe gelten und greifst ihn auf unverschämte Weise als Person an (you don't understand the policy or are silly or stupid. Intellectually, we are operating on very different levels. Learn the basic principles about discussing with other persons. ...). Du kannst froh sein, dass kein anderer Admin deine 06:27-Antwort[20] gesehen hat, sonst wärst du umgehend gesperrt worden. Wenn du hier weiter mitmachen willst, dann komm von deinem hohen Ross herunter. Übrigens steht in der FR-policy sehr wohl Commons aims to provide stable filenames. --Túrelio (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mateus2019: I think you're the one exaggerating (btw, there's no such thing as "overexaggerating", it's like saying "more better") here. Multichill has kindly told you to stop doing unnecessary renames, but you chose to unnecessarily escalate it. You do know that such escalations, result in consequences, right? I also don't see how the removal of the filemover privilege is a "revenge action". Multichill doesn't seem to have a personal grudge against you, and from every message I've seen from them, they seem pretty chill. (Ba dum tss)

Anyway, people like you are the reason why I generally oppose any kind of "code of conduct", and everytime a "code of conduct" is being drafted, I always get skeptical. pandakekok9 10:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Janee, dass er einfach nicht auf ein grundlegendes Problem (Zitat “"026" is unacceptable as the title reads otherwise”) reagiert, geht gar nicht. Genau mit dem Argument, um das es ging, sperrt er mich dann. Daher war ich angesäuert. Es gibt gar keine “clear naming convention in Category:PD-Art (Yorck Project)”.(diff). Das ist faktisch eine völlig beliebige fortlaufende Numerierung, die sich nach der Abarbeitungsabfolge durch einen Bot (ergo obsolete Aussage) orientiert. Weitere fachliche Disku hier. Man hätte das Umbenennungsproblem ausdiskutieren können, anstatt mit dem Holzhammer Rechte nach Gutsherrenart zu entziehen. Leider sind die Umbenennungsregeln sehr unscharf und unverständlich gehalten (einerseits soll es aussagekräftige Dateinamen geben, andererseits sollen sie stabil bleiben. Außerdem soll ein - sinnbehafteter - Numerierungsstil erhalten bleiben.) Da keine Wertigkeiten angegeben werden, sind die Ausführungen ziemlich undurchdacht. Wie gesagt, ich finde das Vorgehen ziemlich überzogen und sachfremd. Schönen Tag, --Mateus2019 (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

three users

They are users with very similar names. And, they have uploaded files with the same name.

What kind of relationship do they have? --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Add Javier Montoya Gomez (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
This user has uploaded File:Riho Sayashi.jpg, too. Why did users with similar names upload files with the same name? Are they friends? Are they family? --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked and tagged them all and created sockpuppet category. Taivo (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Solomon203

  • Scrap that - Why are you reporting something that happened A YEAR ago?. I also see you're repeatedly going to Solomons talkpage over pointless things - Leave them alone and focus on Commons. More of your silly nonsense may result in you being blocked by an admin. –Davey2010Talk 17:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Kai3952, Yes I can read thank you. If you don't like people commenting on your threads then maybe don't post them?. Like I said Solomon's comments don't warrant revdelling here - At most they deserve warning however given this is old news that would be pointless. –Davey2010Talk 19:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Admins, my requested the deletion is only mean to avoid disputes caused by other people's quoting. If you want me to focus on Commons, then it's best to eliminate the possibility of recurrence in the future.--Kai3952 (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Like you have been told the content does not warrant revdelling and repeatedly asking isn't going to achieve that. If Solomon said it then that would be a different matter .... but linking to it whilst still an attack it's not worthy of revdel,
May I suggest you ask for revdel at that wiki?.... because that way linking to it would be pointless wouldn't it........ –Davey2010Talk 19:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Shut up if you don't understand the Chinese language!--Kai3952 (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Please don't be rude. Telling people to shut up helps nobody. I actually gave you some helpful advice if you bothered to read my reply. –Davey2010Talk 11:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

User:محمد رسو

I've looked at a number of their contribs, and they seem universally unhelpful. Given that they were messing with a ban notice of an office-blocked user this may be ban evasion, but whatever it is it isn't good. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed - whatever they're here to do, it's obviously not to contribute to Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Asgatee

This user, who had already been warned several times, started uploading URVs again. Unfortunately, administrative attention is needed here. By now, three images are still available that have been uploaded by this user - all of them are copyvios. --Mosbatho (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. First block (3 months) did not help. Asgatee has uploaded almost 100 files, all without exception copyvios. I blocked Asgatee indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Let's hope that the user returns and changes his behavior for the better. --Mosbatho (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Pope sindhi

This user keeps uploading (and reuploading deleted) non-free images here. Can someone check them out? —hueman1 (talk • uploads) 12:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I found one copyright violation and marked for deletion. Also, warned the user. Requesting @Túrelio and Gbawden: for help. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

E4024 Battle-grounding and general nationalistic editing

So recently I was a seen by a user E4024, not much happened about the user except they put up a deletion request because of an issue with Flickr in France, which is fine.

I later found out they go on strange deletion requests based off their POV, as an example he has tried to delete an X-Taliban symbol because he though it was out scope, under that logic any symbol with an X symbol, should be deleted. Ironically there is no policy in this what so ever and having a symbol in an X mark is a cause for deletion and has a practical use as an example a user-box or on an article. Looking at his deletion requests, it's textbook battle-grounding. He deletes files which I uploaded mostly of Kurdish protests or files relating to AANES (Rojava), with no consistency he seems his only issue is that it's a protest of Kurds.

He hasn't flagged any other protests and all protests have practical use. If someone could review this user's general behavior that would be great. Minister of Cizire important to the politics of AANES and a rare image, Newroz Kurd 4 a file of some PKK fighters in 2014 a fairly rare image and can be used on series of articles relating to the PKK, Kurds or Newroz. In the deletion file of a picture of me he calls for me to be blocked, "Out of scope. The user's TP is full of deletion notifications. I guess it is time for a warning block." Which doesn't make any sense because pictures of editors are perfectly acceptable so why delete it? It was also reviewed as a personal file by Túrelio. He also tries to deletes another personal files which has already been reviewed such as this, which is used on my English Wikipedia User-page. His deletion requests are based around his POV, and some of it just seems like him being upset at other users, with no consistency. This is just my limited experience with the user but it does put major red flags. Thanks.

Also found out he was recently reported for doing the same thing previously here Des Vallee (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Npa –Davey2010Talk 21:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Davey2010 I don't support the Taliban no, but with that in mind the point is you can have X of any symbol, Capitalism, Communism, Fascism, Christianity, Anarchism or of a religion. The point is he appears to deletes image based off his POV and nothing else, and appears to deletes images based off personal grudges. Even if you support the Taliban (strange), attempting to state that you should arbitrarily decide to delete an image based off it has an X on it is nonsense. Moreover deleting images relating to personal files for personal reasons and calling for a block on them, obviously isn't allowed. Misunderstanding. Des Vallee (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


  • E4024 files a lot of DRs and, even better, speedy deletions. That means that they're a useful editor and so are protected by admins. It doesn't matter if these are for invalid reasons "I guess it is time for a warning block." "personal photos by non-contributors", so long as he's helping with the great work of getting content deleted. So nothing will be done about this. Don't be surprised if you're blocked for reporting them here. As to their nationalistic bias, this is very obvious. Their DRs of "anything Kurdish or non-Turkish should be deleted anyway" [21] [22] Jews and Judaism are pretty obvious but take a look at their block, sock and topic ban history on wikipedias for nationalistic editing [23]. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Andy Dingley Wow thanks didn't know he is blocked indefinitely as a sock-puppet on Wikipedia. And this is just my limited experience but he seems do DR's off his Turkish POV. Also wow this user is a serial socker on Wikipedia, with over 100 sockpuppets being blocked, and this user also has a massive issues on Wikipedia apparently attempting to "Turkify the Armenian identities of various people." and using racist words. Just look at this doesn't this have an effect on Wikimedia with it being a WMF project? It clearly shows he isn't a clean charter. Des Vallee (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • It's more likely that a couple of admins on Commons will support them, just on that basis, because it emphasises how independent Commons is from Wikipedias. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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

All their uploads are copyright violations. Requires mass deletion of files. I have only marked one. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I have warned him/her but still uploading copyright images. Run n Fly (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: or any admin help in this matter. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
All deleted, it seems there were no uploads since that time. rubin16 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hasimfeyyaz

Hasimfeyyaz (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Could someone please check this account's "suggestededit" contributions? Hopefully, this is obvious. --Fæ (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If it's not obvious, consider that diff adds a caption in Turkish calling the building Tatar Ali Ak Mosque, to a photo of the Brown County Courthouse in Nashville.
To my eyes as someone who cannot read Turkish, this is basic vandalism and everything from this account looks like vandalism, just hidden from normal patrollers because it's hidden in captions and the WMF have not invested in any anti-vandal tools on Commons while rolling out captions on Commons, for some reason, perhaps to make the website look like a really nice free database for commercial machine intelligence development. Luckily GIGO applies. --Fæ (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
✓ Blocked indef as VOA because of 150+ trash edits. May they request for getting unblocked if I'm wrong. Sorry, I'm lacking the time to revert, have to go to bed now... --Achim (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@Fæ and Achim55: Thanks, all reverted.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Nikon1803 removing DRs

User: Nikon1803 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Keeps removing DRs after having been warned twice(!). Diffs: Special:Diff/561305828, Special:Diff/561588522, Special:Diff/560802678, Special:Diff/560968323. Warnings are at User talk:Nikon1803#Please do not remove deletion requests and User talk:Nikon1803#Please do not remove deletion requests 2 respectively and were posted April 19th and May 17th respectively.Jonteemil (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I deleted most affected files and blocked Nikon for 2 weeks (second block). Taivo (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Rassln

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Rassln for a week. Taivo (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Putra Yudha Pradana

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Putra for a year (third block). Taivo (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

MEMIZAT

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked MEMIZAT indefinitely, vandalism is reverted. Taivo (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

block after personal attack

Just for the record: I've blocked Adilkhan Utepov (talk · contribs) for 1 week, as they grossly insulted[24] another user who had tagged 2 of their uploads as copyvios (game cover and game screenshot), which were subsequently deleted by 2 different admins.--Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism, threats, and attemped hacking

More annoyingly than the unhinged text, with its puerile formatting and punctuation, and the idle, boring threats of legal prosecution and meatspace physical violence, this user has apparently tried to log in to Commons using my account: Indeed I got a notification in my bell thingy stating «There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password.» (It would be sweet, “dear” WMF, if these handy notifications would link to a log, instead of to a useless, Clippy-style “help” page, and also if the warning text could be copied and pasted elsewhere by the warned user for users who cannot, like I do, make use of HTML+CSS syntax analisys console to even be able to select said warning text.) Maybe this IP should be blocked, to avoid successful harassment of people with lesser skin thickness and lesser computer security. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tuválkin, In regards to the email part - If you head to Preferences, On the User Profile tab - Check the "Send password reset emails only when both email address and username are provided." box - That will stop the annoying emails :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Davey2010, but I don’t get any e-mail from notifications (though at least those I could easily copy-to-paste text from), I was refering to the dropdown notification list here in Commons, the pagetop bell thingy. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Nothing to apologize for, Davey2010, of course, and thanks for suggesting the notification mute. My issue is though not notifications themselves (let them come!), it’s the lack of a persistent link to a log entry detailing the event being notified about, as in the case at hand, and also the inability to (easily) copy and paste text from those notifications themselves, which behave like giant buttons one can only click on; I would imagine a panicked user seeing that dire warning would want to copy the warning text and paste it in a help talk page somewhere, but no sharoot unless one has F12 madskillz (oh, but OOjs is simpler for unexperienced users, donchaknow?, yessir it is!…). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
That’s what happens when a troll is notified they were featured in ANU, by the way: Quite the reason not to do it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Bloodycommonspayback

Meta notification about nonexistent (?) Bloodycommonspayback’s e-mails.

Very likely related, although not (yet?) active in Commons. Sent me an e-mail from my Meta account, need to tick off e-mails from noobs in all my synonym accounts now. What a bloody nuisance. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  • This user sent me e-mail with insulting nonsense as Jan Pawel Lary Lubek from janpaulubek@gmail.com (msg-IDs: CA+noUyF2+jd_eguT2dtsmpr5b1FcZ498AT2=hZjGrbgW7jc57A@mail.gmail.com and CA+noUyFbco9V5+EXwrG-uea_eUeHdwk3qnWx5wxgoK2bZFR=BQ@mail.gmail.com) and as Tadeusz Ted Nida from tadeusznida@gmail.com (msg-IDs: CAFJv56N0EugZsArsmdeeDdNckM=H1NnhJuNFLYxRCyBDZ=PntA@mail.gmail.com and CAFJv56M7ZXDDst9wCYvNk5s7dUKi92qO-HaUuiv-GC4JxC+xvw@mail.gmail.com). See also this blog post and its comments. Reported as spam to Gmail and new e-mail by newbies blocked also now in Meta, of course. (I couldn’t find the appropriate venue at Meta to report this kind of issue.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: All these accounts and addresses belong to the same LTA: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Projects. Although it may be also Wikinger, as mentioned there (and IMO it is). Regarding their addresses, IMO there is no much sense in blocking due to reason mentioned in that article. --jdx Re: 16:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jdx: Are Projects and Wikinger one and the same? Interesting question — I have no idea. However, a Polish-speaking person obsessed with «obscure Greek letters» does ring a bell, though, about a strange case of apparent impersonation / usurpation that happened elsewhere a few years ago (doesn’t it, @Evertype: ?)… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I do not know but there are some similarities. --jdx Re: 03:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: The account is locked but still there. There must have been some steward's or oversighter's action. Click here and then "contributions". --jdx Re: 03:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin, Jdx, and Pi.1415926535: The notification may have left off a trailing "s". Martin Urbanec locked both Bloodycommonspaybacks and Bloodycommonspayback.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jeff G.: Well spotted, thank you! I have been raking my brain trying to figure out how and why, assuming good faith, would someone (at Mediawiki, or the WMF?) think that a notification text including a username could benefit in any way to be conditionally parsed to chop off characters of said username… Does presumption of good faith exclude the use of Hanlon’s razor? — I ask because that would explain this issue (and many others). Anyway, @Martin Urbanec: thank you, too. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Tuvalkin: You're welcome! I suggest that you file a phabricator task without casting aspersions.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Impolite content and username

Uploaded an unknown PD-text logo with insults/rudeness in its filename, description, and SDC fields; username might also be problematic (in Dutch?). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I deleted the vandalistic file. But I did not block the user, because (s)he has no edits since February. Taivo (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Khanh Nguyen

Khanh Nguyen (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

License laundering, and continuously upload files with fake licenses. Pavel Abdulmanapovich (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Pofka

Pofka (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Pofka is an established user, having been successfully contributing to this project for ten years and a reasonable number of contributions. They can be expected to know how most things work. During a long-running dispute about file moves, they today informally mass messaged 50 sysops. In good faith they were asked about their mass messaging at the dispute thread but did not address the concern with any relevant rationale, nor do they appear willing to recognize this was not a good thing to do.

Though Commons has a fairly relaxed approach to messaging, the official massmessage right is limited to sysops for good reason, and informal mass messaging to canvass about a dispute you are a party to, without any consensus to support a mass message, and without the minimal confirmation with a sysop before posting should not be encouraged due to risks of inflaming disruptive arguments, and potentially biasing the outcome of dispute resolution.

Raising here for opinions or potentially for a warning. By the way, I am not a party to any dispute. --Fæ (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Comment by Pofka I never violated any rules in these 10 years, but over the past months I encountered strange behavior of Kazimier Lachnovič and his friend Лобачев Владимир. They performed mass edit warring against me at the English Wikipedia at the article named Pahonia (all their content was removed by administrator and they were warned), then I noticed that Kazimier uses word rubbish (1, 2, 3) to refer to the Lithuanians, his friend also performed edit warring at the Coat of arms of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth when he attempted to remove the Lithuanian coat of arms (with blue color) and instead replaced it with a more similar one to the Belarusian (he performed the same actions in other languages Wikipedias of the same article as well). These two closely collaborates by performing anti-Lithuanian actions and even attempted to prove that the Coat of arms of Lithuania (Pahonia is one of its historical names) is a Belarusian coat of arms (this edit). My concerns about his anti-Lithuanian actions was strengthened by the fact that he immediately attacked me and Elli when we simply inserted a Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas name (this report includes the list of these renaming). Moreover, he also previously removed Latin text from a title (here), which included the name of Lithuania in Latin. My well motivated edits were also censored by Kazimier's friend here and here. All this anti-Lithuanian activity, removal of Lithuania's name in non-Cyrillic text, censorship of the Lithuanian rulers names in the Lithuanian language raised a lot of concerns for me that two users from Belarus/Russia are actively performing anti-Lithuanian activities. Something is not right when a Lithuanian is censored in Lithuanian topics and when we are called as rubbish by such suspicious person as Kazimier, who actively participates in anti-Lithuanian edit warring. That's why I actively requested for help by the administrators. My home country (Lithuania) has said a lot of criticism for Russia and Lukashenko, so maybe these two users are making a revenge for our support to Ukraine, Belarusian democratic politicians, and Alexey Navalny. Our country is often attacked by propaganda from the East, so an attacking of our symbols, rulers reminds one of these anti-Lithuanian propaganda acts, and so I needed for help to find out if such activity does not violate the rules (in English Wikipedia they violated the rules and were stopped). The neutrality of Kazimier's edits was also questioned by other Lithuanians at the same dispute thread Fæ mentioned here. I patiently waited till the last days before my report would have been archived (according to my calculations it would have happened tomorrow). I did not requested for biased comments, but simply wished to receive a feedback from administrators before it was archived, therefore I had absolutely no bad aims and I am not abusing the mass messaging as I done it for the first time when I felt it was really important and this is the first time a report was created about me. -- Pofka (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done No violation of any rules by Pofka. It's just a message, it can easily be ignored, or not. --A.Savin 16:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Pofka was trying to alert the wider community to Kazimier Lachnovič's abuses and POV-pushing. I see no harm in trying to point out to others any problematic and unconstructive behaviour. -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Request delete grossly insulting comments

繼上一次報告之後，同樣的人身攻擊再次發生，但這一次是由IP說的。他們二人的人身攻擊都有一個相同的原因：根據Reke說的。

  • Solomon203說他是根據中文維基百科由Reke發表的某一則發言。
  • IP是自己跑來User talk:吹笛牧童，以「反諷」方式說自己有病，企圖規避人身攻擊。根據他的發言，如果不是User:吹笛牧童，那麼可能是過去曾在PTT參與「這張照片被要求刪除」話題的人。請注意看那則話題，在下方有Reke發表一則指控某人有病的言論。

此二人差別，一個是直接對我攻擊，另一個是間接對我攻擊，但二人的證據都顯示出他們所說我有病的言論是出自於Reke，因此我請求管理員刪除他們二人的發言。
然而，我在5月18日有說：「 my requested the deletion is only mean to avoid disputes caused by other people's quoting. If you want me to focus on Commons, then it's best to eliminate the possibility of recurrence in the future.」這話，動機與目的都說很清楚，User:Davey2010卻跑來擾亂。不是因為事過一年就當成沒事，或視為我的請求是無理取鬧，而是為了避免更多人仿效，比如那位IP，若不刪除的話，這對我在未來上是會徒增麻煩，因為它會變成在commons.wikimedia對我聲譽上與心靈上損害的一種「負面謠言」，希望管理員可以重視。

以上報告用中文是因為他們不能理解為什麼我要報告這種事，而且給他們看證據與發言連結，他們也是看不懂裡面寫的中文。經過User:Krd建議之後，因此特地用中文報告，以表明這一次報告是向中文管理員@BrightRaven, Jianhui67, Jusjih, King of Hearts, Minorax, Mys 721tx, Shizhao, and VIGNERON: 請求刪除。--Kai3952 (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The evidence provided in this report are all in Chinese, so I need admins who can read Chinese and willing to help me. If you're not a native Chinese speaker living in a Chinese-speaking environment, you won't need to waste time translating the report from one country's language into that of another.--Kai3952 (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Again like you were told in the last report - "Go to THAT Wiki and ask for Reke's comment to be revdelled (revision deleted). Which part of that statement is hard for you to understand Kai?. Also no one's going to read that wall of text to figure out what's going on. Again no one's going to revdel comments where someone's linked to Reke's personal attack. Again for the third and final time > Go to that Wiki and ask for it to be deleted. –Davey2010Talk 12:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Having looked at your report at User_talk:Krd#吹笛牧童 I see nothing wrong with the IPs comments thus far (they seem angry for some reason but as far as I can see nothing bad's been said nor has Reke's comment been linked?). –Davey2010Talk 12:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: 既然你都看不懂我在報告什麼，卻還跟我說這麼多？不要因為這件事就藉機擾亂。從那之後，我沒再去找你了，而且你也對我說「Be gone troll」攻擊的話，我並沒有對你追究什麼。如果你有本事，請你自己去找Reke，看他會不會聽你的話。因為我試過任何辦法都無法阻止他散布謠言，以致於別人也跟著他那樣說，然後我的中文維基帳號因此被封鎖，請問你對我說這麼多是有什麼用？--Kai3952 (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
You've come here expecting people to read 30 minutes to an hours worth of conversation and haven't provided any diffs to back up these personal attacks. If you don't provide diffs how do you expect to helped?,
Nice try but I replied to you (and gave you some kind and friendly advice) at ANU over another issue[25] to which you replied with this so I think I was well within in my rights to be angry with you.
Well you can always email an oversighter and see if they can revdel the content. But there's not much we can do here. –Davey2010Talk 13:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

我現在唯一能做的就是在commons.wikimedia刪除別人說的話，因為他們對我貼上疾病標籤通常在被我發現時，往往已經很多人看見，我也往往來不及阻止，原因是他們會在中文維基、PTT、Facebook任何地方針對我有****病這個話題去議論我，因此我的能力上除了受限於中文維基帳號被封鎖而不能去中文維基請求刪除之外，也受限於PTT、Facebook都不是屬於維基百科的管轄範圍，使得我僅僅在commons.wikimedia發現有人說我有病，若不是當面對我說，恐怕很難被我發現。發生這種事的原因有二：

  1. 他們不能接受commons政策。他們對外說法是，我因為得了****病才對政策理解有誤，而且將溝通困難與執著都歸咎於此病。
  2. 他們缺乏合作編輯的精神。他們對外說法是，我在找他們的麻煩，而且說話態度很不友善，甚至還把人家給逼離開commons。

正因1.2.是如此，所以同樣有這麼多人從中文維基跑來到commons.wikimedia編輯照片，為什麼只有我發生這種事，原因就是在此。尤其是1.，commons政策有DW、OTRS、FOP，其中他們對於我舉報侵權而請求OTRS感到強烈反對，比如Reke，這問題我之前很多次報告過。即使我們知道Reke是因為不接受commons政策才會誆說我有病，但是按照中文維基那裡的管理員封禁我的帳號來看，顯然他們不止不相信我說的，反而還認為我在擾亂。這就是我在commons.wikimedia貢獻所付出的不必要代價。現在我唯一希望就是在commons.wikimedia刪除那些人說****病的言論。--Kai3952 (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Please read Commons:Harassment#Dealing_with_harassment - Oversighters etc can deal with on-wiki harassment but we cannot do anything about off-wiki harassment as that's out of WMFs control. If you're being harassed then please email Arbcom or the oversight team who can be of more help than us. –Davey2010Talk 13:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: 我就已經說過了，你能想到的方法我都試過了，而且他們說我有病，這是叫人身攻擊，而不是叫騷擾，更何況你不是管理員，所以請你不要來這裡擾亂了。我現在說第三次，我要的是刪除Solomon203和那位IP說***病那段留言，請你不要企圖誤導這是Reke引起的爭端，那是二回事。我上面關於Reke的解釋，只是為了阻止你繼續來擾亂，不是要你幫助。如果你真的是在幫助我，很好，你可以回去了，這裡會有管理員來處理，不勞煩你費心，否則我有理由可以懷疑你是為了這件事才過來這裡湊熱鬧。因為一般人的想法不會沒事給自己帶來麻煩，尤其你明知道自己不是管理員，而你卻是反過來的，當然我會懷疑。--Kai3952 (talk)
Well if nothing has been done on-wiki then I would assume that's because the WMF doesn't believe any action is warranted. I don't see any personal attacks by either IP so I would kindly suggest you take a break for a while and maybe return once the dust has settled - Just don't get into disputes.
I can comment where I want and admins on this platform are free to ignore me but speaking as someone who has been on the English Wikipedia for 8 years I've seen some very disturbing and atrocious attacks but I can say none of what's posted appears to be an attack. This is twice you've posted here and twice admins have agreed no further action is warranted so maybe that's telling you something......,
As I said you're more than welcome to try other methods to stop the off wiki and on wiki harassment but if it continues and the WMF cannot do anything then as I said just lay low for a while, unfortunately we've all been harassed myself included but there's only so much WMF and admins can do. –Davey2010Talk 14:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Kai3952's continuing harassment by playing the victim, for which he is blocked on zhwp. Blocked for three months. -Mys_721tx (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Alta Falisa

@Alta Falisa: user:Alta Falisa insists, for several weeks now, in overcategorizing images by adding categories that already are in the parent category, to several of his uploads, even when me and other user(s) already told him about Commons:Overcat since march. I think that that it is needed is someone else to talk to him and explain the situation, before any other action is needed. Tm (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Ladislav kopůnec Univerzon

Ladislav kopůnec Univerzon (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) A long-standing problem contributor (Special:ListFiles/Ladislav_kopůnec_Univerzon) who uploads files that are out of project scope of Wikimedia Commons project. Is it possible to prevent him from uploading other files? Thank you!--Gampe (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Due to large number of out-of-scope uploads I blocked Ladislav for a month. Also I nominated couple of his uploads for deletion. Taivo (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Santos Barragán

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

This user uploaded three files that I wrote on Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_92#three_users. Is this user also related to them? --Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. No need for checkuser, sockpuppetry is obvious. I blocked him indefinitely as sockpuppet and will delete all his uploads as clear copyvios. Taivo (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Lee Gok Da

Continued copyvio uploading after warning. Possible license laundering (photo on a laptop screen taken by mobile phone) Pavel Abdulmanapovich (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Fcsb99332

Fcsb99332 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

User keeps uploading soccer club logos which have had the text removed partly or entirely. —chaetodipus (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. The user is warned. I deleted all his/her contributions. Taivo (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

JP001

Hello, The user returned after years just to continue a edit war (Example: diff), for which he was blocked twice and warned by multiple users. See talkpage: User talk:JP001. I did the last two blocks, requesting the third and indef. (considering that the user was warned a number of times, and blocked twince with just 421 Edits) block here on AN/U. Regards. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I probably missed the two previous blocks. I didn't know there was an edit war going on, because I don't show up often on Wikimedia Commons. My apologies if the rename requests are not correct by the "criteria". I just follow spelling rules. But it is clear now: a hyphen is not a reason for a name request. I will write that down. In my opinion, it's ridiculous, but I will follow the imposed rules. JP001 (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Copyright protected images uploaded by the user Castrajon https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles?limit=500&user=Castrajon&ilshowall=1 All the photos that this publication are not his own, he is copying them screenshots from YouTube and googlemaps of protected images and other users, I request that you block this user and delete all the photos that he is publishing. © TURISMO RURAL ARLANZA (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC) © TURISMO RURAL ARLANZA - Todos los derechos reservados. These photos are published on GoogleMaps and YouTube with copyright and this user is copying and publishing them in his name without consent, this behavior violates the wikimedia rules, please block this user and delete all the photos that he is publishing — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurismoRuralArlanza (talk • contribs) 20:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC) © TURISMO RURAL ARLANZA (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Andreal90

Andreal90 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

I need a review of my actions and recent edits of the user. After a few months or even years since uploading they decided to change the licence of some of their works from CC0 to CC-BY-SA what is not allowed because CC0 is irrevocable. The user has been informed about the issue: Special:Diff/566907298. Feel free to lift the block if you think it is too harsh action. --jdx Re: 10:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Support Good block. Taivo (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

small pile of speedy deletions needed

User:Www.Vijay kumar.M used cross-wiki uploading to upload the same selfie seven times. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

User:News Inside

Rather obviously here to promote their business. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Wikipedianempire

User:Wikipedianempire is uploading various photos of prominent right-wing activists, labeling them as their "own work" when that seems very unlikely. For example, Nick Fuentes AFPAC II.jpg and AFPACII.jpg seem pretty clearly taken from the livestream of the AFPAC II conference (exact same angle as the official feed, and the poor quality suggests it was screencapped from a low-res stream rather than taken with a camera).

Others seem to be intentionally unflattering photos of women that are also unlikely to be their own work. Kayleigh McEnany.jpg has already been nominated for deletion by another user: Uploader stated at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kayleigh_McEnany that this was taken by other person, but gives tag saying it's own work. It's so low quality, it might not even be her. Low quality makes me question it came from photographer (and wasn't randomly swiped). Quality so bad, it may be intended to make subject look bad. We have countless high quality professional images of this person. It has no value. Tulsi Gabbard, 2019.jpg and Michelle Malkin in 2020.jpg are two other examples of the same.

Their talk page shows a history of copyright issues, and the user should probably be blocked until it is clear they understand what is expected of them with respect to copyright. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Obvious copyvios deleted, user indeffed (they have zero productive uploads), last two files DR'd here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Anolacrabsss

Anolacrabsss (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

The user is only engaged in uploading images found over the internet leading to copyright violations. The user has been already warned. Run n Fly (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Run n Fly, thanks for reporting this. I have taken care of the uploads. However, as no files have been uploaded after the warnings, a block would be premature. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Sonia Sofia Gracia Corona

Sonia Sofia Gracia Corona (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvios after last warning. This user has been blocked before.

And, this user uploaded the three files that I wrote on Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_92#three_users and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_92#User:Santos_Barragán. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked again rubin16 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, rubin16. I suspect that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:Francisco Javier Montoya Gomez. The behavior of this user is similar to that of User:Francisco Javier Montoya Gomez's sockpuppets. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Subaruking21

Subaruking21 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Parten lag gayahatay — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2401:4900:5B85:69B7:1399:1EEF:6214:C14F (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks Gbawden (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Desert Eagle Green Landscape LLC

Only post was an essay about gardening on the help desk, username makes it pretty obvious why they are here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: Blocked indef for spamming on their tp & promotional user name. --Achim (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

User:TylerKutschbach again

For the record: I've blocked TylerKutschbach (talk · contribs) for 1 week as they manipulated[26] the DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Img.OR pre 1912.png despite previous warnings (User_talk:TylerKutschbach#Please_do_not_edit_war). --Túrelio (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

INDV100

INDV100 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has uploaded images from the Lokshabha website and claims to be fair free use under {{GODL-India}} which is not because as per copyright notice (http://loksabhaph.nic.in/Copyright.aspx?linkid=1) says clearly For any other re-use of the material you are required to seek permission by sending a mail to us. Under Section 2 (k) of the Copyright Act (No. 14 1975), the copyright for the reproduction of any material from the debates and ancillary publications vests with the Lok Sabha Secretariat.. There are lot but I have tagged as I can find as follows:

They need to be checked and also be made clarified at Template:GODL-India or talk-page if possible/applicable. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Aliv123

Aliv123 uploads only protected images several times, seeing no improvement. --Migebert (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month Gbawden (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

TTP1233

TTP1233 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is always engaged in uploading derivative works from Government of India sites and claim to be free by tagging them {{GODL-India}}. On scrutiny nearly all fails in the deletion discussions and are deleted. The user has been warned earlier on several occasions not to do so, but still uploads non-free images in Commons. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Some noteworthy discussions are Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shri Dilip Ghosh official portrait, 2019.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TTP1233 Run n Fly (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
He is also on my talk page upset that we didn't check OTRS on an image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: Not only these I can see File:Mark-rutte-2019.jpg is uploaded and tagged with |permission={{cc-zero}} and |author=Government of Netherlands but if you look down in the meta-data it clearly mentions Copyright holder=Arenda Oomen tel 0653833039; Copyright status=Copyrighted; Online copyright statement=www.arendaoomen.com; Contact information=foto@arendaoomen.com; Publisher=Redactie RO.nl. Also, it looks that TTP1233 has an impression of {{GODL-India}} being similar to {{PD-USGov}} in usage, which is absolutely not. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I issue a proclamation that from next Time I will use the godl license in PIB files...not other website unless the policy of copyright tells the direction.. A final chance I want...TTP1233 (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Tm refuses to solve over-categorization

See User talk:Tm#Over-categorization. This involves files in Category:Tourists at Nederlands Openluchtmuseum and Category:Tourists at Hoensbroek Castle (not all are his, but the majority is). I am afraid to cause an edit war when I revert his actions to solve the Over-categorization issues. I am inclined to let it go, but that might not be in the best interest of Commons. Do you have another solution?
History: I nominated several of his files for deletion because I thought they were out of scope being tourist snaps. But they were kept. Because I did not understand that decision, I started a discussion, see Commons:Village pump#When is a photo out of scope because of being a "holiday snap"?. One suggestion was to make new categories especially for this kind of photos. So I did, but Tm did not agree and put all the files again in the parent categories as well, what causes over-categorization. I have no more arguments to convince him. JopkeB (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I really do not want to block anybody here, but overcategorization is not good. I closed some DR's and recategorized some files to avoid overcategorization. Taivo (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
This seems to be a bit of policy manipulation to me. JopkeB has created categories to put images that he wanted deleted, and is now trying to wield policy against overcategorization to force the images to be placed in those categories.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Neburner11

Neburner11 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  The user engages only in uploading copyright images and logos. They have been warned previously but still engages in the same activity. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him/her for a week and deleted last remaining upload. Taivo (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Quang Minh Tinh

Quang Minh Tinh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Reason:  It looks like a duck to me. Block evasion sockpuppet: Đăng Đàn Cung (talk · contribs). Faking OTRS Permission.

Urara Haru 麗春 13:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user indefinitely for faking OTRS-permissions. Taivo (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

User:NataliaNataliaN

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

Copyvios. —91.193.178.232 09:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Túrelio warned them at 12:15, 13 June to quit with the copyvios and since then they've not uploaded any?. If users have been warned then please only report if they're continuing after that warning. Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 13:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. Túrelio warned her and IP nominated her uploads for deletion. At moment this is enough. Taivo (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Naledi Mathatho, THE GIRL MOLLY, and Mollytheone

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the sockmaster for a week and sockpuppets indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G. and Taivo: This user has also started to vandalise wikivoyage pages, and is blocked on MediaWiki indefinitely. Are you sure one week is enough? SHB2000 (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I do not want to export problems from other projects (Wikivoyage) into Commons. The user's block has expired in Commons and I do not want to block him/her for what happened in other projects. Taivo (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
And plus, don't users get blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, or is it just an enwiki thing? Also, could you please ping me, since I'm not that active on this wiki. Thanks, and take care, SHB2000 (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo and SHB2000: The main account is now globally locked, thanks to Matanya!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Did I accidentally submit a duplicate report? Oh well, whatever, the job's done. SHB2000 (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Wait no, Matanya was the one who locked the account. SHB2000 (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@SHB2000: The lock was at 11:55 UTC, 38 minutes after you wrote what I responded to above, and 115 minutes after your report at m:srg. Please report any lock evasion there.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@SHB2000 and Matanya: As anticipated, they are back as Molly Mathatho.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I noticed you requested a lock at meta. Thanks for that. SHB2000 (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@SHB2000: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Not a commons thing here, but this user's now back on WV as Nale Mathatho. Not sure what's their new account name on MediaWiki. Just letting you know if the user comes here again. SHB2000 (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Molly Mathatho has also been locked as well, thanks to User:Sakretsu. SHB2000 (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Could User:41.113.73.33 be her? I've geo located the IP address to Johannesberg and the user claimed to be from South Africa on an edit on Wikivoyage. And as usual, their socks always vandalise my talk page SHB2000 (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000: Yes, that's her, see m:srg#‎Global block for 41.113.0.0/17 and special:contribs/41.113.0.0/17. Thanks for your continued cooperation.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I noticed User:Billinghurst has blocked her. SHB2000 (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@SHB2000: Where are your pages being vandalised by this person? Here? elsewhere?  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
It's my talk page here on commons and my IP talk page on wikivoyage. SHB2000 (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Minhnhatvt72

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done rubin16 (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@rubin16: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu

The user persistently adds photos that aren't own work, and many of them have been either deleted or currently nominated for deletion. Still persistently continues to add copyright images. I think it should a final warn or a block for this user. Regards. Uncitoyen (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. No activity after Patrick Rogel warned him/her. Taivo (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Read description of images first and where i got them before report me. Military photo's are from my own profile if you see the nickname you will see it's match. Secondly previously deleted pictures were from 2019 2020 from when i was an amateur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cengizsogutlu (talk • contribs) 07:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

INDV100 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is always engaged in serious copyright violations only. The user has been warned number of times by others but always ignores them and re-engage in the same activity. The user also removes speedy delete notices as can be seen from here. The user has a long history of uploading copyright media in disguise of {{GODL-India}} that can be verified from their talk-page and earlier complaint. See this. Run n Fly (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete the lot and block. Nothing here is trustworthy.
File:The Air Force Tableau passes through the Rajpath at the 72nd Republic Day Celebrations, in New Delhi on January 26, 2021.jpg is a problem as the source is a link to the bare image file and so there's no way to check a claimed licence. It also has the text "This image, which was originally posted in https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/Gallery/PhotoGallery//2021/Jun/H2021060298177.JPG, was reviewed on 2021-06-17 by the administrator or reviewer INDV100, who confirmed that it was available on that source on that date." which is a problem: INDV100 isn't an admin or reviewer (and shouldn't be!), even a reviewer shouldn't be reviewing their own uploads, and the URL doesn't allow this licence to be checked. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • While I am not an expert in copyright, I feel there to be something strange about the uploads and edits for this uploader. I noted a comment on Run n Fly's talk page from them earlier today questioning a nomination as a copyright violation, but not performing a correct challenge, despite the big grey box to challenge this being as plain as a pikestaff on the file page. I performed a challenge on the uploader's behalf to create Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jharkhand Government Logo.svg, before looking at their contributions. I find their contributions to be somewhat vexing, and, while I am not an expert, doubt their blanket claims to {{GODL-India}}. At the very least a full investigation is required, so I am happy that this discussion has been started. I regret I have nothing technical to add, just a feeling of unease about their contributions. Timtrent (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy ping @Taivo and Ellin Beltz: for help as they handled similar problems earlier. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked INDV indefinitely and will delete some his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo please note that their talk page unblock rationale can not be correct. I have lodged an objection there. Their rationale shows that they either have not learned, or are incapable of learning, about copyright. Timtrent (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: and Timtrent. The user is also a CU confirmed sock of Sdg100. See w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdg100. Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:M.Zaid and User:Airrack & User:Ehlboy

I'm having a bit of an issue with copyrighted content in Category:M.Zaid where two users, User:Airrack and User:Ehlboy, have been uploading images sourced from IMDb and claim to both be the copyright holder of the same file, File:M.Zaid.png (see file history). I have tagged the images for speedy deletion but keep on getting the tag removed with various different ownership claims and versions of copyright templates, instead of following proper procedure. I don't think I'm getting the message through to those two users that these images are copyrighted and can't be uploaded here (see IMDb Conditions of Use) and that, if they are contesting the speedy deletion, they must open a normal deletion discussion instead. The watchful eye of an admin would be appreciated. Calistemon (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

See also en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zaid Zayd for a possible connection. Calistemon (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

AndLikeThings

✓ Done, thank you rubin16 (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

雷電1990

雷電1990 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Please block this disruptive user. They're acting a lot like Yuiyui2001's socks. —hueman1 (talk • uploads) 08:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1: Please do not forget to notify the user and please elaborate. A plain "please block" isn't helpful here. I see a bunch of overloaded files which were reverted by you (example: File:Ph fil dinagat islands.png). But I see no attempt by you to contact him on his talk page about this. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Rishav2014

Rishav2014 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

The user continuously uploads images leading to copyright violations and always claims to be own work. The user also uploads images from pornographic videos and claims to be own work which on enquiry remains unanswered. See this. Also, the user has been warned before but still engages in the same activity. Run n Fly (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring the content, which is rather tasteless from the porn shots (and available on any good porn site), the uploads which are claimed as their own work will bring Commons into disrepute. I recommend deletion of many/most/all under Commons:PCP and threat of or implementation of sanctions against the uploader. This uploading and claiming as own work cannot be done by accident Timtrent (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Adamant1

While I do hate to interrupt a perfectly good spat, it seems admin action has already been taken to resolve this in the short term. If you cannot reach agreement on the talk page, then someone should consider opening it up to a larger community forum. Unfortunately, this is not that forum. Also yes, slander is a legal term in English which is not appropriate for a few reasons. First, it's incorrect as slander refers only to spoken rather than written word. Second, it's not impossible that someone interprets this as a legal threat and reaches for the block button. Either way, this back-and-forth should take place elsewhere. GMGtalk 13:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Adamant1 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) come across Category:Fox television logos ("FOX") and didn’t understand (or misunderstood) its purpose. Instead of asking in the category’s talk page or starting a CfD, Adamant1 proceded to remove this category from 50 files and tag it with a speedy deletion tag, offering their clueless, smug, and rude assessment of the matter. Once reverted and warned, Adamant1 persisted and reverted the removal of the speedy deletion tag, incurring now in edit warring on top of lack of collegiality (both in terms of politeness and of discussion process) and vandalism (not nihilistic vandalism for the lulz, granted, but even worse: righteous, purpose-driven destruction). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @Taivo: Please do not encourage this and undo you hasty deletion, to allow discussion to occur. (Discussion about this category should not happen here, by the way, but in the cat’s talk page, or in a CfD. Here admins are asked to analize and discuss the behaviour of this user.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
This user leaves me a random message on my talk page giving me a "final Warning" where they also called me a "clueless smug vandal" just for requesting a speedy deletion on a category that was an exact duplicate of Fox television logos, few other categories, and contained zero files.
I asked them on my talk page what exactly the problem was with the deletion request. Instead of just saying in a civil manor why they opposed it they report me here, repeat the same thing about me being a "clueless smug vandal", and accuse me of edit warring just because I reverted them once. When they are the one that reverted me original. Plus, they accuse me of all kinds of hyperbolic nonsense, repeatedly throw out insults, then say I'm the one lacking in politeness and the ability to discuss things. Really I see no issue here except for Tuvalkin deciding to slander me and file a retaliatory admin report.
Also they added back the deleted category to a bunch of files that it didn't need to be attached to after it was deleted. I'd like an admin to revert the edits and give Tuvalkin a warning about not verbally abusing other editors. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Obviously I mean it in the colloquially sense. For the sake of this discussion I'm perfectly fine calling you saying that I edited the files because of "righteous, purpose-driven destruction" slander. Clearly the purpose of such statements is to try and damage my reputation. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Obviously you did, but there are people here who love to cause aditional problems over this kind of nitpicks, so you’re warned. I personally don’t care about your reputation at all, I care for Commons. I see someone removing categorization en masse and asking (successfully!) for speedy deletion without even stoping to think and ask whether Category:Fox television logos ("FOX") is indeed «an exact duplicate of» Category:Fox television logos or maybe, just maybe, there’s something else they didn’t catch. So, here we are, trading accusations instead of working to improve Commons. All due to your inability to even imagine that you might not be 100% right, 100% of the time. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. Adamant1 uncategorizes 50 files
  2. Adamant1 tags cat with SD
  3. Tuvalkin reverts SD
  4. Tuvalkin warns Adamant1
    (simultaneously) Adamant1 reinstates SD
  5. Tuvalkin files this ANU report
  6. Taivo grants SD
  7. Tuvalkin reinstates (red) categorization
  8. Taivo restores cat
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC); corr. and upd. at 11:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
That's a rather selective and false telling of my edits and your side of things. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I restored the category and fully protected it for a year. No edit war, please, The protection can be lifted, after you have agreed something. Taivo (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: I don't think that was an appropriate way to handle it on your end. The category is a completely unneeded duplicate of Fox television logos and I don't see someone as bullying as Tuválkin has been agreeing on anything. Plus, reverting someone once isn't edit warring either. It's also ridiculous that I should be expected to discuss things with someone who has acted so verbally abusive toward me or that the default should be do it their way. I already asked them what the problem with the deletion request was and they didn't give an answer. There's zero reason they would give one now and I have better things to do then argue with a bully or grovel to one just so a duplicate category can be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Since your the one that filed this is there a reason you can't just state here why you reverted me or why you think the category isn't a duplicate so this can be dealt with here and now? I don't really feel like having to come back here again after you badger me on Category talk:Fox television logos ("FOX") and refuse to work it out. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Adamant1: No. Categories should be discussed in their own talk pages or, exceptionally, in a CfD page. AN/U is where admins discuss user behaviour, but I’m not an admin and I have zero interest in even encounter you again. Life’s too short and Commons is big enough. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey, your the one that initiated this. You don't want to deal with people, then be an adult and don't instigate things with them. As far as things being dealt with on talk pages sure, but if your going to accuse someone of things like vandalism and "purpose-driven destruction" in an Admin complaint then it's on you to back them up those claims and explain them here, where you made them. Unless you can't. Which if that's the case I think you should be sanctioned for filing a false admin report. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Your the one that filed the complaint. I'm just asking you to explain what was "vandalism and purpose-driven destruction" about my edits. Why can't you? Also, I'd appreciate it if you respond to my comment on Category talk:Fox television logos ("FOX") so this can be dealt with. Otherwise, @Taivo: should just unlock the page so I can finish what I was doing before you screwed with things. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Any chance someone can resolve this since @Tuvalkin: is unwilling to provide any evidence to backup their slanderous accusations and it's obviously not going to go anywhere anyway? I'd really like to archive the condescending and worthless topic it about it on my talk page, but I'd prefer this was closed first so it doesn't look like I'm trying to hide the existence of an open complaint or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Good thing I wasn't asking you. Anyway, your comment is kind of the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? That said, calling this whole thing worthless (and you condescending) is just a statement of facts. Clearly you think you know better then me about this then me and it obviously isn't going anywhere. Since your unwilling to discuss it compromise. Last time I checked facts aren't insults. Clearly, your just at such a petty level with things that saying this isn't going anywhere because you ignored it for three days is a massive insult. If that's the case then nothing I say wouldn't be. In the meantime, I've been more then reasonable about things and I have every right to ask this to be closed without having to Indore more of your incept bickering. So I'd appreciate if you grifted somewhere else and let an admin handle things from here instead of trying to continue this petty nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wonyeong rose

Wonyeong rose (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Repeats copyvio after warning. LX | Talk 02:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Ricardalovesmonuments

Ricardalovesmonuments (talk · contribs) Repeats copyvio. Wrong licence, missing date and so on. Last cases are listet on her user talk. Pan Tau (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Some German speaker would be good here, as I see, the user is blocked in de.wiki for a day now, can’t analyze the situation myself rubin16 (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
User is blocked cuz of intimidation/harassment on my user talk page. No context with the copyvios. My opinion: Any administrotor should warn the user not to repeat the copyvios and read the pages for author rights. There is missing any knowledge and less interest to get the informations. There are enough pages where Ricarda can ask if an upload is possible or not. Pan Tau (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Pan Tau is currently blocked in the German Wikipedia for one month due to sexual assault against Ricardalovesmonuments. For your Information. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

There was no sexual assault. Therefore Ricardalovesmonuments was telling I've psychologial problems. But thats not the issue of this threat. Pan Tau (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
=> de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Anfragen/Archiv/2021/Juni#Das_geht_zu_weit! (in German). Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Non admin comment - As far as I can see they've never been given a copyvio warning so I've done that, I've also told them at they need to visit OTRS and that further repeated actions would result in a block. IMHO no further action is needed - My assumption is that the wrong licence, wrong dates etc is primarily because of a lack of understanding and the fact they don't speak English?. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Can't be a problem. Everything is translated into German, even the upload form. Pan Tau (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Generally speaking copyvio blocks are usually done once the user has been sufficiently warned - exception being if it's blatant copyvios - in this case I'm not seeing blatant just more of a misunderstanding. –Davey2010Talk 13:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pan Tau: Please stop right now pestering User:Ricardalovesmonuments. Given the sexual harassment at de:wp (I can confirm this), this appears to be a case of cross-wiki hounding. We will look into any possible copyright problems within the uploads of Ricardalovesmonuments but you need to stay out of this. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Deine Warnung beeindruckt mich sehr. Die Medaille hat immer zwei Seiten: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_89#User:Ricardalovesmonuments. Müssen muss ich gar nichts. Helft der Diva, gibt ihr die Bühne die sie braucht. :-)Pan Tau (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I've warned Pan Tau on his talk page (in German language). This was followed up by this edit. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I think it is Pan Tau who needs a block, this comment is totally inappropriate (if Google translate is correct)! Bidgee (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm using the same words like her[43]. Pan Tau (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Since Ricardalovesmonuments was blocked at deWiki for that reaction to the harrasment by Pan Tau, and Pan Tau's comment at commons is by their own admission "the same", then a block should clearly follow for Pan Tau. Agathoclea (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Obviously RLM has written much more not nice stuff against Pan Tau. Translation per Google might not give sense. --46.114.89.252 14:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah the translation for me is hopeless but looking at links at DE there is some minor history between these 2 - Pan's last edit here was in March 2021 and so they only came here today to what I would describe as Harass RLM which is not okay. Anyway Pan should be blocked for harassment. –Davey2010Talk 15:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
My 2p: Wouldn't be fair due to the fact RLM insult against PT [me wasn't treated.] --46.114.89.252 15:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems like to me Pan Tau has logged out and is posting as a IP and trying to pretend to be some else. I think a checkuser is in order, if my allegation is correct, it would not only be disruptive but also rather twisted in an attempt to not be blocked for their ongoing harassment. Bidgee (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
My thought exactly. After a few EC to the above: There is not much that can be translated. Ricardalovesmonuments had the habit of alerting editors that she knew to be editing articles relating to an area she was about to take photos in, of the fact that she was about to take new photos. Pan Tau seems to have taken objection to this rather strongly in a now revision deleted edit which was deemed sexual harrasment and led to a one month block. In the meantime Ricardalovesmonuments tried to defend herself leading to a) being harrased here and b) receiving a one day block for overstepping bounderies in said attempted defence. Harrasment has no place here. Agathoclea (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I've opened Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pan Tau. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Pan Tau has confirmed that they were contributing as IP. In consequence, I've withdrawn the CU request and blocked them for a day. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
And confirmed by subsequent autoblock #409655. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

One day for cross-wiki-harassment and socking - whow. Has to be AGF-day ... but anyways. The files:

should be changed to one regular DR. They are all taken from the University of Berkeley and are attributed aa:"Maps distributed by United States Army Map Service following capture from foreign military during World War II." So there may be a chance they are in PD (so only the licence has to be corrected). I'm not sure about that, but I'm sure we have experts at copyright law during war times. --Mirer (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Pancho Regitro Cuevas

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him for a week and deleted all his uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Kematen

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

Has already been warned regarding continuous reverts of File:ESC 2022 Map.svg which they made out of dissatisfaction with Crimea being displayed as a Ukrainian territory. They are now still insisting in changing its source file from File:Eurovision events Map.svg to their upload File:Eurovision Events Map.svg, which shows Crimea as part of Russia. Purposely ignoring my own explanations (as well as other users’) as to why they shouldn’t bring this issue here. イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話） 18:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I'm Kematen!
I know. But Kosovo is also marked on the map, even though it was proclaimed by the government. The people of Crimea voted. Just that I say it, I'm from Austria. I just don't know how to make a dashed line. Otherwise I would have made a dashed line. I know, I know. I am the bad one, the stupid one and so on. Bla bla bla. Why is the Kosovo then drawn in?! I would mark it on my part anyway, but then the Crimea is even more justified to be drawn. (with dashed lines) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kematen (talk • contribs) 18:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 Not done. Please calm down, everybody. Referendum of Crimea was faked. If you cannot make a dashed line, then show Crimea as part of Ukraine. At moment Crimea is shown as part of Ukraine, so nothing should be done. Taivo (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: the point is another though: look at the history of File:ESC 2022 Map.svg and at File talk:ESC 2022 Map.svg, the user has been warned already and they keep disrupting. It is not about the referendum and it should not be. イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話） 08:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed on their talk page, the file's talk page, a talk page on the English Wikipedia, another user's talk page, an admin's talk page, lots of edit summaries, and probably other places I forgot. Every time, it was obvious that this user's edits were opposed by multiple people. Despite all of this, this user continued to engage in an edit war on the file. This person is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Pansilu Karunagoda

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. You warned the user twice. After first warning the user has not made anything in Commons. At moment nothing should be done. Taivo (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The K Prime Editor

The K Prime Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) keeps on re-uploading File:Helena Paparizou.jpg that is copied from video/obtained from internet. See logs here. The user was warned earlier but seems to ignore them. Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done by @Taivo rubin16 (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Sant Vicenç de Castellet train station

The user CFA1877 keep deleting the local and official name of the staion Category:Sant Vicenç de Castellet train station translating the name into spanish: Category:San Vicente de Castellet train station

That was the only reason that was given, even though the reason of my edition was clear: not the offical name

17:13, 24 June 2021 CFA1877 talk contribs moved page Category:Sant Vicenç de Castellet train station to Category:Sant Vicente de Castellet train station (Not in Spanish) (revert) (thank)

I tried to contact him to restore the page 2 times in the user page, but he diverted the response. In the last request, he claims that he is not able to speak english, but:
User talk:Jtcurses

Hi Jtcurses. Maybe you think I made the change arbitrarily. But in the Declaración de Red de 2020, Adif has designated Sant Vicenç de Calders as the terminus of the Zaragoza-Tarragona line. In the same way, line 600 now ends at the La Boella gauge changer. The entire old section between Vandellós and Sant Vicenç de Calders no longer belongs to line 600. Please consult the Declaración de Red de Adif and you will see with your eyes which is the new situation. CFA1877 (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Taivo - Wikimedia Commons

Hi Taivo, I saw you did this change which resolved the trouble about the name of this category. But again the same users (1, 2) broke the apparent consensus that there was. I see you are administrator in Commons, so I beg you please put an end to this situation. Since last year I usually work in this line, in es:wiki, in Wikidata and in Commons, but that's impossible. I don't care about the name (although I prefer a short one), but it is impossible to work this way. I am always changing the data in Wikidata and Es:wiki because of these arbitrary changes. It is very difficult to stay calm and in good manners. Thanks in advance. CFA1877 (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It is obvious that he has NO intention to restore to the proper name as no longer can be trusted. It looks like a political-motivated issue to discriminate the local language.
I ask for renaming the page to the local and official denomination: Category:Sant Vicenç de Castellet train station and move all images accordingly. Best Regards

9pm (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It's true, I don't understand English well, so I use translator app. That is the reason why I asked him to use Spanish. I am not opposed to the changes, but to the rude methods of this user, which made the changes arbitrarily and was a bit violent with me. The user is Spanish, so I asked him to explain to me in our language (Spanish) what specific rules (of Commons) he refers to change the category. Beucause in Spanish the name of the category is correct, although initially this user changed everything and reacted with threats when I objected to the changes without explanations. Today, without giving any concrete answer, the user has preferred to to report me as political-motivated issue (!!!) rather than indicate me the alleged rule.
I do not want problems. If there is a rule that mandates this change, I beg the administrator to make the change and to provide me access to the information of the rule (since the user does not want to). CFA1877 (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
You managed to get that category in the page you created: Rail transport in Sant Vicenç de Castellet, so you delivery make the translation even it is not the real name of the station. Secondly you delete my edition (even when I put the reason : not the official name // neither adavanced english nor so different from Spanish)//) So you know clearly what I'm asking for. And the only answer i got: it is not Spanish.
As I said before using please in a request it sounds polite to me, shortly after that you deleted my edit (but I can not say the same of the answer you gave me), meanwhile I already gave you 3 warnings to make the proper changes (curios that you have enough level to detect the tone of a sentence: advanced English is required but impossible to understand 3 words of my edit). In regards to English, I'll stick to the language to avoid missunderstandings and make it easier for the administrators as you can easily understand: not the official / real name of the station. (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@CFA1877, 9pm, and Krd: The category name should use the "proper name" of the station per policy subsection Commons:Categories#Category names, in this case "Category:Sant Vicenç de Castellet train station". What files should it contain, and what text and categories should be on the category page?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Tha page has been created again: "Category:Sant Vicenç de Castellet train station" and all images moved accordingly. As for "Category:San Vicente de Castellet train station" has to be deleted (I do not know the proper way to do it). Thanks for your time.
9pm (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@9pm: You're welcome. I redirected it and changed the link on Wikidata.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Asom Barta + socks

It was requested in w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asom Barta that the results should be cross-posted to Commons as Asom Barta+ CU confirmed socks were/are active here too. Cabayi (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

There has been a slew of uploads from this sock farm here where the licensing is in doubt. All the uploads appear to have been for some illusory commercial gain. Asom Barta itself is an Assamese newspaper. Timtrent (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done blocked rubin16 (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Lori155

Lori155 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Repeats copyvio. LX | Talk 01:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned Lori. Next time block. Taivo (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Uploads by user:Dimples69

Hello, user:Dimples69's contributions marked as "own works" are certainly not his works. File:Ramirez 1.jpg is a cropped version of an image available at multiple places around the internet, the photographer of File:François-René Boullaire.png is almost certainly not alive anymore or would be close to 100 years old. Same with every other of his contributions. I have no idea how to proceed. —viciarg414 08:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Чръный человек

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  • (Edit conflict) Ummm.... I don't know if anyone's spotted it but their username also translates as "Black Man" ..... I mean the user may well be black but it seems a very bizarre username to have ....,, Username aside the deceptive edits by this user IMHO is enough for a block anyway. –Davey2010Talk 14:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I want to make an explanation. In 2011, I saw that in the file Pitirim Sorokin.jpg at first was uploaded the whole thing, but later it was overwrited, and only face of Pitirim Sorokin remained. I decided to upload the whole photo under new name, taking it from the file history. When creating a new file, I copied the entire description. I couldn't know then that not everyone can make edits with permissions for OTRS. All other errors are of the same kind. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

TheNationalFrontier

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed as spam. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

User:ဝိညာဏ်ထဝ်

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

Copyvios after last warning. This user has been blocked twice before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

blocked for 3 months based on the history of blocks rubin16 (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, rubin16. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Houssam BH continuing to upload non-free files

Houssam BH (talk · contribs) has continued to upload non-free files despite their previous one-week block by EugeneZelenko in March. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for help! User was blocked for two weeks. I also delete obvious copyrights violations. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Insults from Pofka

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

A participant from the Republic of Lithuania allows unethical attacks against me and Belarus. Here are his last remarks on the page Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1792.svg:

What I can clearly see here is that this flag resembles the National emblem of Belarus#Pahonia (alternative Belarusian coat of arms with a horse rider since 1918) and I am completely sure that the Belarusian-Russian users (Лобачев Владимир and Kazimier Lachnovic) will attempt to defend this WP:HOAX in order to secure their inaccurate propaganda about another country. This is disruptive editing, which has nothing to do with Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

User Лобачев Владимир is simply spreading Russian/Belarusian propaganda everywhere and very likely belong to the Russian web brigades

User Лобачев Владимир is just a well-known Belarusian/Russian propagandist... That's why he actually want to keep this fake, HOAX-type illustration

In the past, Belarus was just a region ruled by Lithuania and their modern symbols do not represent any period of Lithuania. Moreover, the Belarusians had no national symbols and no state prior to 1918.

Please take action. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Seeing how many content uploaded by Лобачев Владимир was deleted and nominated for deletion by other users of Wikimedia as well (see his talk page history), I would suggest to take sanctions against him instead. Just take a look at the latest version of his talk page by scrolling from the top. In many cases, tens of files uploaded by him were deleted at a single time. He uploaded unreliable CoAs about other countries as well (e.g. see this report). -- Pofka (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see any insults. Лобачев Владимир acts as a pusher of low quality chauvinistic content on Wikimedia, thus making disruptive editing. -- Ke an (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Just so anyone happening by here is aware, although it's already fairly obvious: this is a cross-wiki dispute that is unfortunately spilling over onto Commons. The en.wp aspect of it is being dealt with over there, and I would suggest to the involved parties that there is no reason whatsoever to drag it over here as well. The only thing that need be considered here is if the images uploaded are within Commons' scope. Ifthey are, how they are used on other projects is not a Commons problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: His fake HOAX-type flag (this one) was rejected immediately at the English Wikipedia (here are attempts to insert it: 1, 2), therefore he moved on to other languages Wikipedias and keep inserting the same HOAX. In order to prevent his disruptive actions, such fake flags should be deleted. I just wonder how long it would take if, for example, a Mexican would create a fake CoA of the United States, based on Mexican sources, and would attempt to insert such HOAX into multiple languages articles? I am sure that such user would be blocked within a day or two. I believe that content in Wikipedia and Wikimedia should be reliable and users should not be allowed to push fake illustrations into Wikipedia's articles. -- Pofka (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm just gonna say it again, a little louder: The only thing that need be considered here is if the images uploaded are within Commons' scope. If they are, how they are used on other projects is not a Commons problem. Comment on that and leave the rest of this non-Commons dispute out of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment These are not insults, but personal opinions that not only Pofka, but also other users have made about Лобачев Владимир following his own actions on different Wikimedia projects, actions that, unfortunately, are often not at all constructive. Indeed, Commons does not consider the NPOV and NOR rules to be imperative; on the other hand, these images published by Commons that do not comply with Wikipedia policies should not be used in (and can be removed from) Wikipedia articles. (Rgvis (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC))

Even if the image is "wrong", unless it gives the right to make offensive attacks, discuss the user and humiliate the country. --Lobachev Vladimir // Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
With regard to the policy aspect, though Wikimedia Commons does host non-neutral media, it does not host non-educational material and copyright violations are always deleted, regardless of media meeting other policies.
Consequently, if there is evidence that fictional flags, maps, disruptive media, have been designed for misinformation and creates negative educational value, that is a rationale to delete. For such a deletion request to succeed, unfortunately, it must be normally* be removed from Wikipedias where it is transcluded first, see COM:INUSE, which means that an image used in 20+ projects becomes impossible to delete. An exception exists for "unlawful" material, however, if that legal justification is not obvious it may need to be raised with WMF Legal for office action.
The issue of in-use anti-educational media is one that is a flaw with the Commons policies, especially considering that it is possible that projects can choose to host files locally if they want to exempt themselves and take responsibility for hosting demonstrably anti-educational media. In light of the forthcoming UCoC implementation, this could be an area of legitimate improvement to policy.
(Footnote) * "normally" because there have been rare exceptions for abusive material, these may be removed at the discretion of an administrator who considers it common sense that it can be seen as a case of abuse, or damaging to the projects in other ways such as the work of a sockpuppet team. --Fæ (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
According to one participant, the vector drawing of the real historical flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania turned out to be "destructive" and "fictitious". For the fact that it does not look like the contemporary flag of the Republic of Lithuania it was proposed to remove it. --Lobachev Vladimir // Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
In the example of the fictional flag for Lithuania File:Flag of Lithuania (state).svg which here is being called the "contemporary flag", though no sources have been supplied to verify that, I have removed the "state flag" related categories and added the fictional flag category. A user creating what they think is a flag based on a crest on a website, with no other sources to support it, should not be presented on Commons as the official state flag.
I would support deletion but this is a good example of COM:INUSE making it virtually impossible to delete, despite being anti-educational as far as can be verified.
Someone may wish to request a "corrective renaming" so that the file name states something like "User created fantasy flag for Lithuania" rather than giving an official looking name. --Fæ (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Fæ: Perform such vandalism again and I'm creating a report about your actions at the administrators noticeboard. Your performed actions were fully disruptive, see: State flag of Lithuania. -- Pofka (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Provide a source that confirms this is the state flag. In the wikipedia article that is your evidence, I only see a photo taken at a basketball game, no state buildings, no other evidence of official state usage, no unambiguous reliable sources. This should not be hard to verify if it is the state flag. The user created SVG has no evidence that it is more than a user created fantasy at the current time. --Fæ (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Fæ: Here you go: Parliament of Lithuania (Seimas). We have two flags: national (yellow-green-red), state-historical (with coat of arms on the red background), thus governmental buildings use both of these flags. For example, a photograph of the Ministry of Agriculture of Lithuania (Žemės ūkio ministerija) with three flags near its entrance (+European Union flag): 1; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania (Užsienio reikalų ministerija): 2, 3. -- Pofka (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that's an excellent source which can defend the educational value of the user created SVG. I have added the link to the image after carefully comparing details, though the source appears to only have a relatively small version to compare with.
This is the level of verification that all these user created flags with claims they are real state flags or versions of real historical flags must include to be rated as more than a fantasy flag. Disputes and challenges about flag validity are disruptive and as seen may cause serious cross-wiki disruption, in all cases, we should be led by evidence not user assertions no matter that they are made in good faith. --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Fæ: I don't think that the SVG file was created by the uploader. He must have take it from somewhere as it is identical.
That's what I ask from the user who reported me, but he do not provide any reliable Lithuanian sources because there aren't any as it is a HOAX. He base the fictional flag on another fictional flag from another non-online source. Truly disruptive. -- Pofka (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

With respect to the request against Pofka, the deletion requests have merit, but the discussion needs to stay civil to get anywhere. Personal allegations and attacks only muddy the waters and derail the facts of these cases of user-created fantasy flags which are pretending to be official state flags. These are anti-educational and better policies should exist cross-wiki to get rid of these types of user creations per COM:NOTHOST. --Fæ (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fæ: If the flag is legitimate, then it should not be hard for him to provide at least one reliable Lithuanian source. It is inappropriate to create fictional flags about other countries, based on non-online foreign sources, and then claim them as legitimate. COM:NOTHOST is really relevant in this question. -- Pofka (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree in principle, though I have not waded through the discussion. For others to get involved, the discussions need to be logical and fact based, especially if they can focus on copyright verification. If there's argument that looks political or nationalistic then most Commons contributors will walk away. --Fæ (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Fæ: I think we should request him to provide a reliable Lithuanian source and if not, delete such flags. But he aggresively refuses to do that and continues to defend some kind of non-online Belarusian sources. We don't even know if such images are really presented in these non-online books or if he created them himself. And even if they are presented in these books, I can't see them as Wikipedia:Reliable sources about other country's national symbols. -- Pofka (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Real Adilly

This is a kind "complex case". This user is a long-term abuser from pt.WP with several proven socks. They have been causing us several problems for days now, trying to use Wikipedia as a means for self-promotion. The master account (Real Adilly ( local | logs | global )) is globally locked, but several of their socks are still at large and acting in several Wikimedia projects, including Commons. This category has been deleted twice now, and they keep creating it. Is it possible to delete and protect this category against recreation? Same with these images (File:Capa de Real Adilly.png, File:Real Adilly (Main Image).png, File:Capa de Real Adilly (2x).png). The user Ressubuname ( local | logs | global ) is, surely, one of their socks. Can they be blocked? Do I have to open a checkuser case to get it or not? Because it's a clear en:WP:DUCK case.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 03:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef Gbawden (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Gbawden. I found another image File:Real Adilly.jpg. This image, if I'm not wrong, was also deleted before. And also another user ASSAPe ( local | logs | global ). I think there's more of them. They keep creating articles on pt.WP, and they are spreading to all the projects. I think I'll have to open a checkuser case.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 06:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
This ASSAPe ( local | logs | global ) is a sock. A checkuser in the pt.WP just blocked them.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 06:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Blocked them as well. Open a CU but if you spot any other instances alert us and we will address them Gbawden (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Gbawden. I'm really sorry to bother you again, but they recreated Category:Real Adilly.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 22:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Blocked the IP. Its like Whack a Mole Gbawden (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Matlin

Can this thread be merged into #Chain uploads by Matlin please? It is unfair on them to run multiple threads on the same thing and looks like forum shopping. --Fæ (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done — Racconish 💬 11:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Charles osei assibey bonsu

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done thanks to Gbawden!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Manishsuryavanshi12

User:Manishsuryavanshi12 is using Commons as a self-promotion tool. His uploads are all promotional publicity shots of himself. Repeated warnings on his talk page have been ignored and he has a track record in vandalism. Propose this user's account is blocked. Cnbrb (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done, no edits after the warning of 29 June 2021. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Smtfamilygroups

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for 2 weeks. -- CptViraj (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@CptViraj: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

RAJKUMARDAMORRAJA

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Rasooool has been uploading a large number of images most of which are copyright violations. I'm marking them as copyvio where possible. I suspect that the rest are violations as well. There is no sign they will stop. After I marked File:Keyvan Mirhadi.jpg as a copyvio, they reuploaded the same image as File:Keyvan Mirhadi Profile.jpg. Laplorfill (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Im the copyright owner of all the pictures that I use in My drafts and articles. All of these pictures are either made by me or is used with confidence that it's there for public use. most of the pictures you are rejecting and sources that you send me are owned by me or the artist that I'm writing about. I only write Bio about the people that i know. I do not want to violate and please remove all those pictures. I will upload all these pictures soon under correct policy with you.they mostly been uploded for qualification purposes and research.

thank you Rasooool (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rasooool: If the images you upload are not original images directly from your camera or if they were anywhere published already, it is up to you to prove their copyright status, see COM:EVID. Moreover, authorship is not transferable, so claiming authorship about a photo that is not made by you is plagiarism, regardless whether you own its copyright or not. Reuploading deleted images without resolving deletion reasons is some kind of edit waring; also inacceptable. Ankry (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rasooool: "confidence that it's there for public use" is not good enough, sorry.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Rasooool has now done this: [48] where he falsely tags a copyright violation as "kept" after a deletion debate, despite no such debate having taken place. I have now opened a deletion debate at: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seyedrasool Sadrieh.jpg. Could an admin take a closer look. It is very clear that Rasooool intends to continue to make false claims and upload copyrighted material unless action is taken. Laplorfill (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I need to use my picture in my page. If its not okay then I will remove it. I tried to remove it from deletion and followed the guide. I never done it before. it said put the codes and remove the tag. I did and the word kept it was from the help page. Im sorry if i did it wrong. I just need to make sure i have this file and i can use it.Rasooool (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user and will close one deletion request. Taivo (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

BusTeam11

BusTeam11 (talk · contribs): persistent copyvio uploading, re-uploading after deletions, removing deletion templates: [49]. 10 warnings on talk page. --188.123.231.58 12:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ blocked rubin16 (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

2600:1700:6d50:2ec0:4560:6a5e:8ead:32c4

2600:1700:6d50:2ec0:4560:6a5e:8ead:32c4 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Vandalism on Commons:Village pump.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Can someone block them ASAP. They are destroying Commons:Village pump.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Now they are vandalizing this page.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done --jdx Re: 04:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Jdx Thank you very much.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

This user might be a sockpuppet of Luis camilo álvarez vega. Since its creation, it has done a number of edits that are only done by previous socks of Luis camilo. For example, this and has started to massively add an instant delete template to a large number of files, a behaviour also shared by Luis camilo. --Bankster (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The user has started to revert my edits to his sock through an IP address, as seen here. --Bankster (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done blocked both indefinitely Gbawden (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The user is back with IP 181.48.34.162. --Bankster (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bankster: That IP has been blocked by Pi.1415926535. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker Overleg • CA 07:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
The user is back with another IP, 186.80.18.21. --Bankster (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The user just changed IPs, now employing 181.206.38.179. --Bankster (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Gbawden, Trijnstel, Pi.1415926535.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Found one sleeper account: ADME123 (talk · contribs). Furthermore difficult to block, I suggest creating an abuse filter. Trijnsteltalk 22:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Blocked both as a precaution Gbawden (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Chain uploads by Matlin

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

I would very much appreciate the help of a Polish speaking admin concerning the chain uploads by Matlin. Here is a first example. Matlin flagged these files as copyvios on June 16. I deleted them. But then they reuploaded them. I deleted them again. They re-uploaded them a third time and marked them as copyvios. My question on their talk page was left unanswered, which might be an indication of difficulties to communicate in English. I also notice on their talk page a large number of self warnings about copyvios. There are 189 copyvios up for speedy deletion from Matlin at the moment, most of them self raised. Wouldn't it be better to exercise more caution before uploading files from Flickr or at least to refrain from pursuing uploads from dubious Flickr contributors ? Thanks, — Racconish 💬 10:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

PS: Same pattern of behaviour here, here and here. — Racconish 💬 18:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Ankry. Although I reckon Matlin is a prolific uploader, I find so much focus on speed and quantity and so little on quality and communication is problematic. Matlin should behave in a more collaborative manner. As I have no reason to assume they are not aware of this discussion, I will wait another day, after which, if there is still no answer, I intend to block them for three days a a warning, in consideration of the fact they have not been blocked previously. Other opinions welcome. — Racconish 💬 12:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Matlin is an active user, uploads lots of Flickr files to Commons, which is good. However, as seen from his talk page, many of the image is out of scope, which requires a lot of administrative works. IMO administrative involvement may be required — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 182.239.90.42 (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I share Racconish's concerns.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
This is more of a social issue rather than deliberate, I think.
Options might be to agree to voluntary restrictions on the use of flickr2commons, like no more than 1000 files a week using the tool, or instead to agree that each upload project greater than 1000 images will require a project page created for it that at least addresses value and categorization. Options like this neither create a significant burden for the uploader, and ensure a more considered approach to what is uploaded and what the value to others is.
There has very rarely been action against users for disruptive use of F2C, only extreme cases resulting in blocks. The problem has persisted for a few years now, and there are still no 'behavioural' usage guidelines agreed, they are overdue. --Fæ (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
While I agree that it probably isn't deliberate, by now they should understand COM:SCOPE and I would support a volume limit. I would be interested to hear what Malin has to say Gbawden (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
A voluntary restriction, which implies a recognition of the issue, would be IMO a good solution. — Racconish 💬 12:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 Support to the voluntary restriction. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 Support to the voluntary restriction. This has gone on long enough.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Denniss have an obvious problem

Denniss have been disruptive editing for 16 years, They upload these images about WWII, and other child personality which had been contributed several times before. In case of violating copyrights to images, which they failed to meet licensing requirements.

Since INeverCry is the first sysop to be banned from the Wikimedia community, and consists many been assumed bad faith on editing Wikipedia pages both English and German, that would breach the community trust. --2001:4452:48D:E600:C43C:D7DE:792B:991 06:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Banned socking user from en wiki making obstruse claims about me, see en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Concerns_by_IP. It's User:Frontman830 who also vandalized my userpage here. --Denniss (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Obvious sock is obvious
@Denniss: haven't notice you've been editing on antisemitism in Poland during World War II on English Wikipedia are yet to involved for arbitration? --2001:4452:48D:E600:ED61:E73C:4083:C87D 22:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 Not done. Vandalistic request. Taivo (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"You may be blocked soon"

We have a problem on Commons where some editors (and admins) are using {{End of copyvios}}, i.e. threats of blocking, in an abusive manner.

This template exists to address the problem of editors uploading copyvios where there is no other solution, i.e. an editor who either will not or cannot comprehend copyright requirements here. This should only happen as a last resort: after repeated instances, after an explanation of what the issue is.

We should never do this: a mere 10 minutes typing time between first interaction and a threat to block. Especially where 7 items are deleted en masse, only two of them are done correctly as DRs and the rest are simply tagged unexplained as "possible copyright violation" so that there is no discussion or audit trail of what happened. One of those DRs was for an invented non-reason for deletion, where even the nominator agreed that deletion was not required. Of course there was no attempt made to discuss any of this with the uploader.

Copyright is complicated. We should treat uploaders according to COM:AGF, recognising that many innocent errors can arise in this. We should work with uploaders to try and resolve these issues. If something needs to be deleted because it's not freely licensable here, then so be it - but we should never turn this into an excuse for witchhunting editors and trying to collect scalps. There are very few times when this template would be justified – this was not one of them, and it's a regular occurence.

User talk:A1Cafel#My photos have been marked deleted and one has been deleted

@A1Cafel: , @Jóhannes Jónsson: Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It all depends on the situation and the person - If the person has been repeatedly uploading copyvios then I issue final warnings (with or without previous warnings), You sort of know when a final-warning is appropriate with people and in this specific case it wasn't appropriate and IMHO it should be replaced with the less-harsher one. –Davey2010Talk 00:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Would you issue one in this case?
Why would you ever issue one without previous warnings, or some prior discussion? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Andy Dingley, Most certainly not, Because in some cases it's obvious the person is only here to upload copyvio images and no amount of warnings will either change their behaviour or make them stop, Of course there are some here who come here in good faith and upload a copyvio not knowing they're not supposed too .... as I said it all depends on the person. –Davey2010Talk 13:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This is a topic most likely better handled at another noticeboard. I've noticed this as well in some cases. As a reminder, COM:BP says the following about blocking for copyright violations: Repeated uploading of inappropriately licensed media is grounds for blocking an account. Clear explanations and warnings about Commons policy should be engaged in before and after blocking a user for license problems. I interpret that fairly strictly, and as a general rule, don't issue blocks unless the editor uploaded copyvio, had the chance to read at an absolute minimum one (but usually more) initial warnings, continued to upload copyvio, was given a final warning, and then continued to upload copyvio. In this case, the user was first warned in January, but the files were never deleted because the tagging editor removed the tags after discussing it with the user. Therefore the warnings don't really count and the user had no reason to think their behavior needed to change. I agree that a final warning was not justified here, as under the blocking policy and COM:AGF a block would not be justified. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I have replaced it by {{Fcs}}, which has a more lenient comment. --A1Cafel (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The template documentation could include links to other templates that might be used. It is certainly not clear which message template should be used first for copyvio warning. Should {{Copyvionote}} be used after {{Fcs}} but before {{End of copyvios}}? MKFI (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@MKFI: Just found {{Upload warning notice}}. IMO the wording is stricter than {{Fcs}}, but not as serious as the final warning. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@A1Cafel and MKFI: {{Upload warning notice}} does not say it is a warning, carries no section header, and is not included in UserMessages. I made {{Copyvionote}} a warning by adding a word six months ago, but acceptance of that template as a precursor to {{End of copyvios}} is still in progress.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_92&oldid=969700688"