Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Blanket 4890

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Blanket 4890 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Uploaded by a sockmaster of disguise of globally banned user Rgalo10.

Here's the investigation of Rgalo10 on English Wikipedia. [1] 65.246.72.95 00:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete The author is not blocked, they are globally banned what basically means they have no rights on any Wikimedia project – m:WMF Global Ban Policy#Implications of a global ban. Properly licenced? Are you sure? Assuming good faith does not seem to be right or smart move in case of abusers. Especially that some uploads of some of their sock puppets have been already deleted (by different admins) due to copyright violation, e.g. User talk:Margrethe 78 or User talk:Super volt 7886. COM:PRP applies. Besides, Commons should not allow abusers to come here once in a while and leave their crap just because allegedly it is "properly" licenced. --jdx Re: 07:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jdx, you should know that this is not a reason for a speedy deletion, regardless of what it says here. Also, you should know that COM:NOTHOST and COM:OWN (which are Commons policies) means also that we do not delete media because the uploader become persona non grata for some reason (like, say, for commissioning a portrait from a novelty artist): It’s content (what you elegantly call "crap"), and who uploaded it should not matter (I blame for this misconception the culture of photographer’s vanity that have become prevalent in Commons…). You have a point about suspending a bit of COM:AGF in the case of banned/blocked users, but it does depend both on the file itself (if it’s, say, PD then there should be no issue) and on the uploder’s proclivities: Analyzing the uploader’s m.o. may indicate how likely it is they would want to gum the works by injecting copyvios. I can think of blocked users who would definitely do it yet also of others who would definitely not do it. Do you know this one sockpuppeteer well enough to be sure? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The policy clearly states Accordingly, an individual globally banned by the Foundation may not edit, contribute, or otherwise modify any content on those sites, platforms, or lists, without the explicit permission of the Wikimedia Foundation. and Any contributions made by a banned individual, directly or indirectly, may be reverted or removed as part of ban implementation. – that are damn good reasons for speedy deletion. BTW, COM:NOTHOST and COM:OWN are not Commons policies. Besides, it's not worth to analyze activities of an abuser, especially globally banned one. Just block, nuke and forget when spotted. --jdx Re: 16:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jxd, that thing you quote is from Meta not from Commons. On the other hand, COM:NOTHOST and COM:OWN are pretty much Commons’ policies, it’s right there at the top of each page: «official guideline». Finally, as for abuser’s motivations, in meatspace even murderers are usually given a second chance; why would we be stricter here for what are necessarily minor offences, especially since some times the reasons for global locks are keep a mystery on which we’re free to idly speculate? If the WMF wants to nuke the uploads of everybody who ever annoyed the bigwigs, let them do it on their own time, and let volonteers work on the curation of a free media repository. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, global ban policy is also a Commons policy. Sure, it is hosted on Meta, but it affects all WMF projects, just like some other important policies, e.g. T&C, privacy policy, office actions policy, to name a few. Global ban is not death penalty – abusers are free to go and abuse other websites. Again, it's not worth to loose time on abusers. --jdx Re: 08:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etymologically it is not community policy as it was penned by some WMF busybody, not approved by volonteer (communal) consensus — so let WMF minions come and uphold it, nothing we can do against it: If I’m to bow to some corporate bigwig, then I want a salary. And while it may not be worth our time to try and rehabilitate this one user, it’s always good to make a stand, symbolic as it it, today and every day, against WMF’s opaque decisions concerning global locks — least what befell Russavia (and what was it?, nobody knows…) disappears you or me or any random one of us tomorrow. And just as in Russavia’s case (whose uploads are largely still on Commons), this user’s files are useful and uncontroversial. While I’d go with COM:PRP in a case like this if it was about, say, photos of celebrities or controversial historical maps, these are snapshots of railcar interiors and signage f.f.s. — we’d not be rewarding the uploader with any accolades nor widespread attention by keeping the lot. (Glad to see you now seem to accept that COM:NOTHOST and COM:OWN are Commons policy, Jdx: This discussion wasn’t totally pointless already.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, per COM:PRP, as too much risk of copyvio (file has no metadata). --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Blanket_4890&oldid=592140655"