Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 82

Калот

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

Recreates OOS content. Not here to contribute. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done - blocked. Эlcobbola _talk 18:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Issue with my bio page

I don't access my account often but had time to read a contested amendment of a page, mine, which is relevant. Should someone contest my identity without consulting the Romanian Shooting Federation or asking about me and my standing national records, it's not my fault. My maiden last name was MIREA, and the Wiki page reflected my name as listed in the archives of the Dinamo Club, Clubul Sportiv Scolar nr 1, as well as the International Sport Shooting Federation which has an incomplete list of my international competitions and titles including the last Balkan Champion title in Sakarya, Turkey, 1997 (I have a photo that includes the former Olympic Champion who was the President of the Romanian Shooting Federation at the time). Should the other user bothered to do a Boolean research, he would have found this website reflecting some of my professional athletic achievements: https://www.issf-sports.org/athletes/athlete.ashx?personissfid=SHROUW0000000042 which is not administered by me but by the International Sport Shooting Federation in Muenchen, Germany. Hopefully the link above will remove the casted doubt from the contested page and reinstate it as initially listed.

Thank you!

Isabela

• This seems to be about ro:Isabela Dunklin, apparently suffering from notability issues. No media on this article, though, so there seems to be nothing to do about the matter here in Commons. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Bidgee

Two days ago (Dec. 3rd) I had contacted Bidgee on his user page after he had wrongfully reverted my 3 edits concerning corrections of De Havilland Canada aircraft locations.

It had happened several times before that he had performed completely wrong edits concerning aviation files. Therefore I explained to him: "The DHC-1 Chipmunk is not a product of the British De Havilland company, but of the entirely independent De Havilland of Canada". I repaired his errors again and wrote "Please refrain from such disruptive edits in the future. Thank you."

Less than 2 hours later he deleted my request and started to re-insert all De Havilland Canada aircraft into the wrong categories of "De Havilland aircraft at XXX Airport" (see here at Wagga Wagga, at Avalon or Watts Bridge).

He acknowledged that they were different companies "Yes there were de Havilland in Canada and Australia" but states "but it makes no sense to have these unconnected".

We would never tolerate to have a McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II being categorized under Boeing F-4 Phantom II even though the two companies later merged. The same applies to the different manufacturers "De Havilland (British)" and "De Havilland Canada" which had already been split during WW II.

Since Bidgee continues to push through his entirely personal ideas and opinion (or "phantasies"?) I feel forced to turn that problem to the Administrators' noticeboard, hoping for a return to the acknowledged principles of Wikipedia. --Uli Elch (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of rights for User:Angusmclellan

This user is unfortunately no longer with us. Could someone please remove all rights? --Rschen7754 19:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: you mean {{Deceased Wikimedian}}? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. --Rschen7754 19:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Bhushan S Mahajan

Pretty much the only thing thing person has done (other than upload images of themself) on Commons is add their name to things, mostly where it doesn't belong, the exact same behavior I blocked them for on EN.WP. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked I have issued a one month block and nuked the uploads per COM:CSD#F10. ~riley (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Weird behavior, almost like they were just hitting "Random file" and typing their name in wherever they landed. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Matthew Peter-Davis

Matthew Peter-Davis (talk · contribs) has been retired/inactive since 2016. However, today I happened to stumble upon one of their uploads while doing some photo work on enwiki, which I noticed was a copyright violation as a Screenshot of Google Street View uploaded as "own work". I then went through the user's uploads and discovered at least half of them to have the same problems - screenshots of Google Street view uploaded as one's own work. I've tagged the ones that I know are copyvios for deletion, but someone should go through the remainder of the images that all look similar to the obvious copyvios but I can't confirm because the current Street View imagery is different. 64.223.249.222 13:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Additional note - the user in question has been indefinitely blocked on 3 separate wikis (2 main "content" wikis, the third is a Wikimania site), and many of the files in question are also being used on Wikivoyage pages. 64.223.249.222 14:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

188.29.165.240

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

They nominated File:Foot2.JPG twice for deletion with just one word "Useless". I had closed the discussion as kept and they again nominated it without any valid arguments. It was again closed as kept by another user. Now this IP hopping user is edit warring with me. Please protect those pages and issue a block if necessary. Thanks. Masum Reza^📞 19:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Done 1 month anon only block, plus rangeblock. ~riley (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

El Kharisma Kasilembo

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Blocked for 2 weeks. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 03:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Emily 92

Emily 92 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

37.116.41.99 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions), 37.159.69.248 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) removes deletion templates on the images by the previous user. OOS images, blocked once. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Done blocked all for a month and deleted uploads. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 03:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Chabe01

Chabe01 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Doesn't understand (or doesn't want to) nothing to FOP despite many explainations in English (beginning in 2016) or by me in his own language. Thinks he is allowed to upload copyrighted pictures because according to him some similar pictures are not deleted. Repeats the same rationale here. There thinks such work is not copyrightable or is of bad faith there. Should re-read COM:FOP or avoid uploading pictures of monuments. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Offensive language in edit summaries

Could Admin act on this very offensive insult in an edit summary, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Offending edit-summary removed. --Túrelio (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Tony Ricca disrupter request

@Jdx: I have noticed that you have blocked the IP range of the Tony Ricca disrupter for a month. He or she has been disrupting Wikidata as well. I honestly believe that a month isn't long enough. This person stated that he wasn't stopping and the fact that this person already sat out a month ban previously just isn't working. I've made the same suggestion on Wikidata. I recommend six months. TLPG (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

As someone who blocked them previously I support this request. The IP range seems to be stable and this is LTA by now. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The range is actually not stable and certainly not for six months. It has changed in one month's span. It used to be Special:Contributions/2001:8003:5999:6D00:0:0:0:0/64 and now it is Special:Contributions/2001:8003:58A3:6C01:0:0:0:0/64. So no. We should not be doing an IP block for six months. --Majora (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: - Point taken, but I still think one month isn't long enough. If six months is too long maybe go for three months? Or two at a minimum? TLPG (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@TLPG: makes no difference when the range changes in one month. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm seeing a fun opportunity to test blocking users with AF though.. not sure it's actually worth it, but maybe. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: - What's AF? Sorry if that sounds like a dumb question. On your first point, I had a look at both and from what I could tell they were both from the metropolitan area of Melbourne (Victoria, Australia, not Florida, USA!). Not much to go on and if it changes again you could be right. But having said that on each occasion he has been blocked he has done nothing more than appeal it. With the exception of the socking, I think he may be respecting the block from that point once he knows he can't appeal it - as he can't with this one because the block includes the talk pages. So if the block is longer it may keep him off for that period even if the IP range changes. I admit I don't know - I'm guessing. I still think it's worth the longer block. TLPG (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

AF = COM:Abuse filter --Majora (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah thank you. I just looked and I have an idea which I will post over there. TLPG (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"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."

If anyone starts acting strange, it might be Tony Ricca disrupter. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: Oops, you are right. One month block sounds right in that case. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Have there been any related named accounts? --Fæ (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: Nothing blatant that we know about at least. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@TLPG: If you notice cross-wiki vandalism/disruption, please report such cases on m:SRG in order to block/lock vandals globally. --jdx ^Re: 11:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jdx: - I don't think that's a good idea, given that I checked back on Wikipedia and the IP ranges seem to be editing okay there without disruption. I think that's because Ricca's gone from there (he did edit there in the earlier range mentioned agreeing with the consensus delete). His most recent activity in wrestling (there have been other subject edits as well) have been correct edits over Ring of Honor's Survival of the Fittest. When it's just the two projects and over one single subject a global block would not be appropriate I think. Nice thought though. I put my idea for an abuse filter on the appropriate page. If it works I'll suggest to Wikidata about the same filter. TLPG (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Filters are not used when blocks are sufficient. One block a month is not enough to justify using limited matching resources for a filter. Filters are for when people rapidly jump IPs in an attempt to circumvent other means of stopping them. They are not to be taken lightly and are not for this type of disruption. --Majora (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: - I disagree. The block is not sufficient. He keeps coming back for more and I don't see that stopping. Unless you have another idea entirely the filter would be the way to go. TLPG (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. A filter will not be created for this. --Majora (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Yet. Let's see what happens. If I end up being right about that fool, maybe you might reconsider. Time will tell I guess. TLPG (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@TLPG: filters are relatively expensive, as in they create a delay for all edits. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: - Oh. Fair point. I didn't think of that. Mind you, having said that I guess it's a case of a choice - keep on blocking every month for goodness knows how long, or go with the edit filter in spite of the "expense". Just putting that out there for the thought bubble. There is also the option of the longer block. Not six months as previously mentioned, but certainly longer than a month. TLPG (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense Legal Threats

Opusong (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) See this -- Eatcha (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Opusong indef-blocked for legally threatening a regular user. --Túrelio (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Nevertheless, we need to decide whether to solve the underlying problem on-wiki or to transfer the issue to WMF-legal.
The issue is about 2 unused videos (1 & 2), that were uploaded in 2018 from Youtube (then seemingly under a free license), but later removed from Youtube because the YT-uploader hadn't the right to do so, as the deletion-requester claims: Commons:Deletion requests/File:함슬옹 미즈비키니 테마웨어 코코바이킹 노컷영상.webm and Commons:Deletion requests/File:머슬마니아 함슬옹.webm. --Túrelio (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

File:함슬옹 미즈비키니 테마웨어 코코바이킹 노컷영상.webm was reviewed by an admin -- Eatcha (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Eatcha, this does not necessarily mean that the decision at the time is final. The claimant might be correct, that the original uploader to Youtube wasn't authorized to do so. At least for Flickr, we all know positively that a number of accounts upload images and put them seemingly under a free license without having the rights to do so. --Túrelio (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Explicit are you interested ? --Eatcha (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Edits of Opusong must be undone/reverted. Taivo (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Namest 2003

Namest 2003 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked for a month. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 03:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted last remaining uploads of Namest as copyright violations (Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Namest 2003). Taivo (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

spam account?

New account Michele de Oliveira Carvalho (talk · contribs) has uploaded a number of nice photographies from locations likely in Brasil, but nearly all, except from 2 or 3 suspected copyvios, carry a prominent visible graphic watermark "Dream Casa", which — per the link on his userpage User:Michele de Oliveira Carvalho — is a Real Estate blog. So, it seems we have to consider this account as a spammer. --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Ola, eu escrevo para o blog mencionado. Mas a matéria é de minha autoria. Existe de fato essa localidade dentro do Bairro praia da Costa em Vila-Velha/ES Brasil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michele de Oliveira Carvalho (talk • contribs) 15:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

+ Você não tem permissão para roubar imagens da web. Veja aqui: Commons:Licensing/pt-br --Achim (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Phalbertt

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

Pinging @Phalbertt

I want to predicate this by saying that User:Phalbertt has been doing good work and contributing positively in terms of election maps and election apportionment files on Commons.
What has, regretfully brought me here is the history of uploading logos and photos of politicians that have questionable licencing or the original sourcing is not clear (e.g. an image was taken from a YouTube channel, which has a CC-BY licence, but the original source or the assumed original source is not freely licensed or with a licence accepted under Commons:Licensing).
What has pushed me to post here is:

1. the reuploading of File:Antón Gómez-Reino 2019.png and File:Yolanda Díaz 2019.png which were deleted via the discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Phalbertt (and they were reuploaded with the same rationale that ignored why the images were nominated and deleted in the first place),
2. this comment,
3. and the continual uploading of images like this that are licensed on the original source website as CC-BY-ND (not allowed on Commons) and then using a different licence.
   

which indicates a continual lack of understanding of proper attribution and licensing and whether the image is actually allowed on Commons, even after being informed multiple times via the DRs they've participated and responded to or on their talk page.
I can understand why it first happened (largely because Spanish Wikipedia has disabled local uploads), but it becomes frustrating when it needs to be explained over and over and over again to the same individual. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 21:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @P199 as closing sysop of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Phalbertt --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 21:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Magog the Ogre as DR nominator of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greens-EFA logo.png et al., Pinging @Asqueladd as DR nominator of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antón Gómez-Reino 2019.png, and Pinging @Patrick Rogel. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 21:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Licensing is such a complicated thing, even for experienced users and admins! So let's go easy here. Looks like we still have to explain COM:License laundering to User:Phalbertt. License laundering is the process where one person takes images or videos from another source, incorporates it in their own work, and releases the new work under a free license. Then an unsuspecting user will upload the new work to Commons, thinking it is free (even though the original source was not free). This creates tricky situations on Commons, as this discussion shows. Looking deeper into the DN's of File:Antón Gómez-Reino 2019.png and File:Yolanda Díaz 2019.png, I can certainly see why User:Phalbertt thinks that the thumbnails are free, because it seems that the author of the thumbnail photo is the same as the video (Podemos). But comparing the thumbnails of this video with this one shows that the photo is not real; it is a collage. Therefore we know nothing of the original photo, not its source, author, date, etc.
As for item #2 above, User:Phalbertt is actually correct in saying that the logo is free. But the problem is: which Commons license fits the legal notice??? I can't even answer that...
Considering that licensing issues can be so complicated (and even open to interpretation at times) and the good-faith edits by User:Phalbertt, I don't see the need for any disciplinary action, but more education. I would strongly recommend @Phalbertt: not to upload other people's work, at least until he has gained more experience and knowledge. And never reupload a previously deleted image; instead use COM:UNDEL. I will however close the DN's as delete with the reasons above. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@P199: :I don't agree that #2 is free. The logo itself was published elsewhere before appearing in that video or in the thumbnail. (the original source being the Greens/EFA website, which only states "COPYRIGHT 2019 BY THE GREENS/EFA GROUP IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT." with no mention of images being freely licensed. But, anyways, I do agree with the need for more learning to be done. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 18:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nat: see my comments at the DN. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Considering what I've already told to user I  Support P199 proposition. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Anonimovlc2003

Anonimovlc2003 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Escape block (Namest 2003 (talk · contribs)), same uploads. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Done Indefinitely blocked and nuked. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 16:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Smsme018

Smsme018 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Blocked for 2 weeks. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 13:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible same person

• Simpocleaning (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Simposydney (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Similarly named. Potentially used in contravention to COM:ADVERT. Both uploaded the same logo File:Simpoc.jpg (deleted under CSD G10) and File:Simpo Cleaning.jpg (nom for deletion per COM:ADVERT. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 02:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Blocked. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 05:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Dileep.mann

• Dileep.mann (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Still uploading OOS files despite 2 blocks. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 14:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Blocked for 3 months. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 15:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Gindomarlo

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

Can't help continuing to remove deletion templates after being told not to do so by different users when not reuploading deleted content. Appart from behaviour problems continues to blindlessly uploading problematic files because he/she is unable to recognize bad files. A re-reading and understanding of Commons:First steps is needed. For information: @Frodar: . --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: As far as I know, "no permission" templates are not deletion templates. --Gindomarlo (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not the problem. In that case you need to provide a permission, not to remove the request of the permission. Agree with @Patrick Rogel: , this user needs some time to stop and better understand the basic rules. Some of his/her contributions are good, but must contribute better. And needs to listen to our advice. Frodar (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gindomarlo: Besides your reverts are problematic both on English as well as on Spanish Wikipedia. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: Dude, you really want to see me blocked... you don't even know the context of those revert notices, but you anyway put those edits here to try to make commons administrators block me... --Gindomarlo (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Please don't try to cloud the issue. I've transformed yesterday's deletion request with the "no permission" templates you didn't like into regular deletion requests so you are welcome to explain yourself there. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Besides I've requested nothing specific today from the Administrators and they'll decide themselves but I suppose they'll ask you a commitment to discontinue your behaviour... Nevertheless please note you have already have been warned/or treated of a block by at least 4 users here. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. After Patrick warned Gindomarlo, copyvios have stopped. At moment nothing should be done. Taivo (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio uploader re-registering

• United corporation Creative studio by Sergiy Morning (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user has registered again under
• CSbySM (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user to continue uploading copyvios and advertising.--BevinKacon (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the first user indefinitely due to inappropriate username. I did not block the second user, because the uploads are mostly not copyvios, they are too simple for copyright protection. Feel free to nominate individual files for regular deletion, if they are out of scope. Taivo (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Del Reqs by User:Dominiquephotographer

Tries to get (his?) valid images removed. Most/all are verified uploads via Flickr. Please speedy close as keep and inform user about irrevocal licenses. --Denniss (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Also vandalism (example). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I warned Dominique. If he continues, then he must be blocked. Taivo (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit Warring at File:Syrian Civil War map.svg

user AVRTM2 is edit warring at[1], he is reverting cited map image without citation and after being warned of edit warring without citation reverts with no revert summary. Bill497 (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. AVRTM2 was previously warned against edit warring, so I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Mural19

• Mural19 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Per Category:Sockpuppets of Harling Mural. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Achim55 blocked Mural indefinitely, all his/her uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

神崎蒼月 20191216

• 神崎蒼月 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues copyvios after 1 week block. 本日晴天 (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Blocked for a month. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 14:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Parametrism

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Blocked for this time two weeks to learn about copyrights. Reacted on nothing, so 2 weeks. Next time must be indefinite. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Solarpvglobal

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

Copyvios despite warning. Minorax (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Blocked for a week. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 17:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Paul sachudhanandam

• Paul sachudhanandam (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Back after a couple of months away Paul is again uploading copyvio images found on the web. Cabayi (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done I warned Paul. At moment that's enough. Taivo (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

2 Spam bots

• Singla.me (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Sachinaggarwalok (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

As above.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Ezarate blocked both indefinitely. All uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio

So many copyvios upload by the user User:Swami Prapanjanathan --~AntanO4task (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done I warned the user. All uploads are either deleted or nominated for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Multiple copyvio uploads after warnings

Mgb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): new batch of copyvios after numerous warnings. Failed to find at least one real own work. --VLu (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. The user has not edited for 3 months, so blocking is not needed. Copyvios are nominated for deletion. I warned Mgb with another template. Taivo (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Out of scope files

Vitold Muratov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) continues uploading low quality amateur nude photos like this after deletion of previous batch. --VLu (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked 14 days, personal album's photos deleted. --A.Savin 17:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Chyah

User:Chyah, apparently no longer active on Commons, has had a steady stream of images removed as copyright violations, so many that it makes me wonder on what basis we can trust any image uploaded by this user. Is there anyone who has already looked into this? - Jmabel ! talk 01:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: me, 4nn1l2 and I think Hanooz as well. I don't see any need to distrust all uploads from Chyah/Rafic.Mufid. Some stuff can be debated, but I believe all were uploaded in good faith. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Old uploads by User:Chyah were problematic. I knew them as a careless copyright violator. But, their later uploads, especially those by User:Rafic.Mufid, have been done in good faith. We find some old copyvios from time to time and we deal with them. No need to worry! 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to hear someone has looked into this. - Jmabel ! talk 03:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, most of the remaining files are their photos or from CC websites. No further action is required in IMHO. Hanooz 16:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

AmirahBreen

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

Continues copyvio despite previous block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Usernamewikot

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

Escape block (Namest 2003 (talk · contribs)), .png files related to es:Sara Fernández. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sockmaster block extended from 1 month to three months. Sockpuppet blocked indef. DR closed delete. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 02:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Stan_old

Hi, Could an admin block Blackedwhite007 who's a sock of Stan_old - Stan is prohibited from uploading nude images of his wife and has again created this account,
The images uploaded were all taken from Stans Flickr account and without spilling the BEANS there's other obvious signs it's him,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Blocked by Taivo. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 10:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Taivo - You are absolutely amazing thanks so much! :). –Davey2010^Talk 21:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Mercedes Benz 18

• Mercedes Benz 18 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Reuploading fair use file(s) despite warning. Minorax (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Túrelio: FYI. Minorax (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked her for a week, the upload is nominated for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

محمد الحربي ٢٢٠

• محمد الحربي ٢٢٠ (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked indefinitely by Morgankevinj. Taivo (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

KateMoening10

KateMoening10 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

• User continued to upload non-free images/copyvio even after being warned by multiple users ([2], [3]) and a final warning by @Elcobbola ([4]) --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 05:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked her for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

4 Spammers

First is obvious spam bot.

• N00t101 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Spam bots from Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_77#New_spam_files

• Asmaftab (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Fasiha22 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Possibly not a bot, but an advertising account mass uploading of copyvios

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

As above.--BevinKacon (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and nuked. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

FIFA master 23

FIFA master 23 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Everything is copyright violation, no useful edit. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Blocked for 2 weeks. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 12:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

رسول علي

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

Continues copyvios. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Blocked for a month. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 04:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Natureindex

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

Violate COM:OVERWRITE and copyvio despite warning. --SCP-2000 (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

SirElliotSpootz

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

Continues copyvios after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Forex spammer

• Chamolsi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Ticabaci (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Antimqa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Camelas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Atmonia (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Rodrixworld (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Punamils (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Woxila (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

All accounts pushing the same forex spam site, uploads a single image, then adds a link to description.--BevinKacon (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Blocked. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahmed chudahry

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

• User continues to upload or re-upload out of scope images (personal photos, etc) even after being warned not to. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 23:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Blocked and nuked. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 23:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Natureindex

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

Violate COM:OVERWRITE and copyvio despite warning. --SCP-2000 (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

SirElliotSpootz

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

Continues copyvios after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Forex spammer

• Chamolsi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Ticabaci (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Antimqa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Camelas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Atmonia (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Rodrixworld (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Punamils (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Woxila (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

All accounts pushing the same forex spam site, uploads a single image, then adds a link to description.--BevinKacon (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Blocked. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahmed chudahry

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

• User continues to upload or re-upload out of scope images (personal photos, etc) even after being warned not to. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 23:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Blocked and nuked. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 23:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Iamalibutt music

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

Warned once but still uploading OOS files. Minorax (talk) 13:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked for a week. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 13:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Mim yar

Mim yar (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Removes deletion tags from their uploads: User talk:Mim yar#Please_do_not_remove_speedy_deletion_tags, Special:Diff/380462053. Hanooz 11:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done reverted/blocked for now. Based on the contributions so far I think this one will come up again. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

‎Moonlightbae26

• Moonlightbae26 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Removing speedy tag despite warning. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 14:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done blocked for 3 days to give them time to reflect. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Mimosfinn

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

Everything by user is copyvio except photos of his books and himself (Mikho Mossoulichvili), though it doesn't look like selfies, no useful edits. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Jeddah Tower

Jeddah Tower (talk · contribs)

Everything looks like testing edits. Please clean up the mess.--Roy17 (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. --A.Savin 20:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrong surnames category

An anonymous user is adding wrong category Category:Surnames to many surnames' particular categories. It's CatCat category, so it is wrong to add it do individual surnames' categories. It must be blocked and these changes must be undone. Matlin (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

They are adding Category:Polish surnames to categories[5] which is fine. They only need to remove the general category, i.e. Category:surnames, too. But anyone, including me, can do that easily by Cat-a-lot. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, i was wrong. Sorry for hassle, i  withdraw the problem. --Matlin (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks spam

While I do appreciate thankfulness, this record from a user with zero global edits looks a lot like spamming the thanks feature for the purpose of being disruptive. Not sure which user in overlaps with myself and Majora in particular. We both have our own collections of cross wiki "fans". GMG^talk 13:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright well, given that this popped up so quickly, I think it's probably safe to say that this is just intentional disruption. GMG^talk 13:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked both. Another one already blocked by Tulsi Bhagat. --A.Savin 13:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

And 4 more pops up. Special:Log/thanks. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 13:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

and if you scroll down, there's 2 more. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 13:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't guess someone has an edit filter worked up for this that we already have or can import? I know xaosflux is particularly good with filters across projects. GMG^talk 13:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  @GreenMeansGo: "thank" isn't currently supported as an abusefilter actor action, so it wouldn't be able to match if that is all that is occurring. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  Well that's a bit of a bother and something we should probably fix. GMG^talk 14:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  @GreenMeansGo: Thanks can be ratelimited, and can be ratelimited just for newbies, phab:T169268 is an example of this - your project would need to have a consensus for the change. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Rate limit thanks - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• User:Debbie is so cute and dumb is another. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment Accounts may be linked to en:WP:WIKINGER per Wiesiaszym's block on en by Antandrus. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 15:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Now at user:Narnia was cool ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Just for the record, previous ones include User:Get done deal and User:Johannesburg 732. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 16:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Nat, I don't yet see the connection. Ah, got it. --Achim (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Achim55: lol --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 17:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You are mean. Thou shalt not laugh at old men. ;) --Achim (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• For tracking purposes... ~riley (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

+1 - Recieved thanks by 3 accounts listed above, Sad really. –Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Images uploaded by TexasRanger6/Casablancas17

• TexasRanger6 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Casablancas17 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

TexasRanger6 was previously known as WESWarwick. Several of his images were deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by WESWarwick after it was determined that they were likely copyright violations. After this, he seems to have re-uploaded them under slightly different filenames. Again, the images are tagged as "own work", and he claims to be the copyright holder. On English Wikipedia, TexasRanger6 was blocked for promotional editing. Part of this was because he was suspected of having a conflict of interest, and being the copyright holder of these images was used as evidence. TexasRanger6 later denied being the copyright holder and said that he had merely requested permission from the real copyright holder. Casablancas17 is an admitted sock puppet of TexasRanger6. The files uploaded by this account have the same problem – they are tagged as "own work", and he claims to be the copyright holder. These issues likely need to be resolved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Files have been nominated for speedy deletion and user warned. Regards. T Cells^Talk 12:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:El Kharisma Kasilembo

Uploading non-free files. Previously blocked for 2 weeks. -- CptViraj (📧) 07:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Done by EugeneZelenko. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 16:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

   Thank you. -- CptViraj (📧) 17:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Iranfootballofficiall

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

Continues copyvio despite blocks. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Blocked for 3 months. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 18:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Mr Vijay Browbby Rathore

Mr Vijay Browbby Rathore (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Uploading out of scope personal images. -- Eatcha (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Spamming -- Eatcha (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Blocked for a week. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 18:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Lilyrather

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

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Done - blocked. Эlcobbola _talk 22:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Stojan Stanimirovic

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

Escape block by Миодраг Крагуљ (talk · contribs) and Miroslav Mica Ilic (talk · contribs), same uploads related to Orthodoxy, same categorization (Category:Monastery). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Done {{Duck}} block. ~riley (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:TranspennineExpressTrainManchesterToLeeds

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

Useless nonsense. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Done at 02:00 hrs. Now locked, LTA. ~riley (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Jonathan 4631

Jonathan 4631 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Blatant anti semitism -- Eatcha (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Done By FITINDIA -- Eatcha (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Jamalalrajhi

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

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indefinitely until they choose to use their talk page and discuss why they upload these files. All uploads deleted. --Green Giant (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

DoctorSpeed

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

Everything is copyvio, warned 3 times. Seems to dislike (in 2017, a few months ago and today) to be caught in the act of license laundering:

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DoctorSpeed;
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fiestas Patrias (Peru) Collage.jpg;
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alberto Fujimori (1992).jpg: continues to claim public domain for a photo upload from a bad Flickr account created the same day.
• and so on.

Apart from being unpolite IMO user can't be trusted. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I've asked Patrick Rogel many times to help me understand what the issue is in the media I upload. Rogel has consistently pulled down media I have uploaded, so I have asked him time and time again about the licensing of the images. While I attempted to engage in a discussion, Rogel refused to reply to any of my questions I published on both my talk page and his (which I doubt he didn't see) and decided to issue me a "warning" on my talk page instead. Seeing that Rogel had no interest at all in communicating with users, I asked him twice to refrain from commenting on my talk page. He continued to publish more notices on my talk page.

I believe by what he refers to being impolite is this post:

"Screenshots can be taken of one's own work. I don't see the reason why this media should be deleted. Additionally, the original source of the photo is from the National Government of Peru. Chapter 5 Article 85 of the National Copyright Law in Peru states that media published by the Government of Peru is not copyrightable. I believe this is where the Flickr user might have derived the public domain license. Please feel free to comment :further on this if you need clarification rather than blatantly marking the media I uploaded as copyrighted.

Another thing, Patrick Rogel has been stalking my talk page these past few months and I have asked him repeatedly to back off. By that, I mean he'll attempt to pull down anything I upload on Commons, regardless of the clarified copyright license I have searched meticulously on the image. For instance, he pulled down a couple of images that I cropped from a photo on Wikimedia Commons that already had a CC0 1.0 license AND was verified, and pulled down that image as well. He is welcome to communicate with me on his talk page, but is no longer welcome to publish anything on my talk page. The reason why I say this is because I wish this to be taken into consideration as well in the deletion plea of this file. Thanks, Happy Holidays. DoctorSpeed (talk)"

If Rogel believe I'm on WikimediaCommons to vandalize and purposely post copyright violations which I've attempted to verify are actual licenses (I use attempted because I have not received any replies from Rogel) I'm a bit perplexed as to why. I'd like to stop expending time futilely writing cases after cases only to receive apathy and get back to contributing. This is the last post I'm doing relating to this regardless if I get blocked and will be ignoring any further posts attempting to engage in unfruitful discussion. I urge him to take a better approach then simply attempting to get me blocked. Best, DoctorSpeed (talk) Addressing the media I uploaded:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fiestas Patrias (Peru) Collage.jpg;

This was a derivative work from media that was uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. I obtained three photos from Flickr, which had a Public Domain license. I'm still not sure what constitutes if a Flickr photos has an "actual public domain license".

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alberto Fujimori (1992).jpg: continues to claim public domain for a photo upload from a bad Flickr account created the

Still don't know what constitutes as a "bad Flickr account". Please refer to the discussion page, where I brought up that the photo is a derivative from a public agency (which he never replied to). Also, a few months ago is a cropped version of a photo from a source that WAS ALREADY UPLOADED TO WIKIMEDIA BY ANOTHER USER which I sure hope is not a "bad source". DoctorSpeed (talk)

@DoctorSpeed: shall know that I've not deleted any of his uploads; various Administrators have. He can click on the red links to know the reasons why or re-read his Talk page. However my he explain to Administrators why every upload by him have been deleted? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore and contrary to what he is claiming @DoctorSpeed: has requested any help from me or from the various deleting Administrators (and moreover asked me to "Please Back Off (Third Time) ". --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Gindomarlo

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

Removing no permission tag despite warning. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 03:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Minorax: start a deletion request. --Gindomarlo (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

and comes back as an IP. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 04:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Blocked for 1 week. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 05:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Spambots

• Harrypitter (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Neckjean (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Fibbon12 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Returning spammers from Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_77#New_spam_files. I did sugguest COM:AF would make it easier to track.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Done Nuked, blocked and reported to ARV. Ping Majora to do some abuse filter work. ~riley (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Aemy123 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Jasqueen (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Drizler12 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Our friends are back uploading the same files, again.--BevinKacon (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Ducks?

• Wamerson2017 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Fwamerson2019 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Looks like ducks to me and probably engaged in log out editing. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 18:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Quack. ~riley (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

User:FaiceGlab America

A few weeks ago, I requested that File:Canadian Horseshoe Falls with Buffalo in background.jpg be moved to File:Canadian Horseshoe Falls with city of Niagara Falls, Ontario in background.jpg under Criterion 3, on the grounds of "The background of this photo consists of the southern outskirts of the city of Niagara Falls, Ontario, with the village of Chippawa in the far background. No part of Buffalo is visible in this image at all."

Then, earlier today, the user whose name is in the title of this section requested to have the file moved back, on the bogus grounds of "infinidad con nombre antiguo del archivo" (I speak Spanish as well as English, and I can't even make sense of what that's supposed to mean.) He also sent me a threatening message on my user talk page in Spanish indicating that I'd be banned from Commons if I tried to change the name of the file again, and also incorrectly claiming that I've already been banned from the Spanish Wikipedia. The only edits on this user's contribution history at Commons are the filemove request and the talk page message to me. His global contribution history does not indicate any activity at all on the Spanish Wikipedia, nor any WMF sites other than Commons.

I've ignored the user's threats and requested the file be moved back again. But I'd like an admin to deal with this situation such that there are no further spurious filemove requests nor bogus threats to have my account blocked. I take my contributions to Commons very seriously and have no patience for nonsense like this.

-- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@FaiceGlab America and Filo gèn': I'm confused about this rename. The image is pretty clearly facing northwest, and Buffalo is some 20 miles to the southeast. Is this just a mistake? GMG^talk 18:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The Niagara River flows from south to north, so the image is facing southwest. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

As I was. Thank you for the correction @Andre Carrotflower: . Still, ~20 miles seems well outside recognizable range. GMG^talk 18:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The U.S. lies to the east (left) side of the river. The only land visible in the photo to the left of the river is the small portion of Niagara Falls State Park that's immediately adjacent to the Falls themselves. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, This file has been renamed as it was requested by FaiceGlab America. Before proposing an image for renaming, users should be careful and indicate a correct filename. Cordially.Filo gèn' (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Filo gèn': I'm a little confounded by your statement above. The request by FaiceGlab America (talk · contribs) under Criterion 2 (meaningless or ambiguous name) made no sense and should not have been approved, as the renaming as proposed by Andre Carrotflower (talk · contribs) was not meaningless or ambiguous and there was no valid rationale by FaiceGlab America for their request. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 20:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: then I made a mistake by renaming this file the next time I will be careful before renaming a file and especially check if the request for renaming is valid. and to tell you everything I got too rushed in my first renaming thank you cordially Filo gèn' (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Filo gèn': No worries. Everyone makes mistakes. The only thing is just to learn from them and be attentive in the future. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 22:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and boldly moved the file to File:Canadian Horseshoe Falls with city of Niagara Falls, Ontario in background.jpg under criteria 3, since this seems to be a fairly obvious error. FaiceGlab America hasn't responded, but they might not, since they have all of six global edits.
  @Filo gèn': No one is going to fault you for making the occasional mistake. But especially when renaming older files that are widely used, and especially under criteria 3, it's important to take a little time and make sure that the request is solid, since these generate a lot of automated global edits, and repeatedly renaming them can be confusing for those on local projects not familiar with Commons.
  I'm not sure any other actions need to be taken here. GMG^talk 21:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• this file would have been renamed several times or that there would have been conflicts between users about the name of this file. i didn't know add it otherwise i wouldn't proceed to rename this file Filo gèn' (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@GMG re: "I'm not sure any other actions need to be taken here" - if User:FaiceGlab America should reemerge, it would be good to have some sort of assurance that no further rename requests will be honored and we won't have to go through this same process all over again. (And I say that with no offense intended toward Filo gèn', who as a newly appointed filemover ought to be given a bit of leeway.) -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Until such a time as that happens, no action taken against them would be preventative. GMG^talk 02:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Fivela castro

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

No useful edits, warned twice. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Blocked for 1 day (1st block). --Emha (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Ángel 22905 Olivares

• Ángel 22905 Olivares (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

A.k.a. Category:Sockpuppets of Ángel Olivares Aray. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Harassment and apparent legal threats

Hi, I would appreciate an administrator view at User_talk:T_Cells#Don't_ever_do_this_again. This appears to be a misuse of discussion pages by Begoon (talk · contribs) to make apparent legal threats, provoke other users by being offensive in an especially nasty personal form, and to deliberately create a hostile environment for contributors.

There may be no sysop action needed at this time, but at a minimum, it seems worth ensuring any pattern of behaviour of this type is logged. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@T Cells and Begoon: as involved parties. --Fæ (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

 Comment. Today I received a legal threat from User:Begoon. The whole thing started here after I voted on User:Minorax RfA with a clear reason for my oppose vote. Several other users including administrators opposed for different reasons. There are also many support votes. Shortly, User:Begoon left a comment there with bizarre attacks on me. This attack triggered User:Masumrezarock100 to post ArbCom resolutions about the EN case on the RfA even thou, this was needless. My case page was blanked by ArbCom, among other reason to protect me from harassment after my departure since I was subjected to recurring harassment during the case. This was documented in ArbCom finding of fact at the time. After that information was shared I felt embarrassed but I tried to avoid drama by not commenting on it or attack Begoon or Masumrezarock100. So, I left this comment with the hope that Begoon would leave me alone. Shortly, they left further attack on me. Since nobody stopped them, I was left with no other option than to respond with this comment. A few minutes later, I received this racial attack on my talk page. So, left this comment in further response to Begoon. When I opened my computer to edit, I got this legal threat from User:Begoon. This is not the first time they would be importing grudges and conflict from the English Wikipedia just to harras me and make it unsafe for me to contribute here. That they have resolved to take legal action against me is something I considered serious. I'd probably be contacting WMF's legal today but I find it necessary to bring this to the attention of the community first. Thank you. T Cells^Talk 13:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• @T Cells: sorry, if my comment looked like harassment. I never intended to harass you, I never will. I didn't know about your ArbCom case and why it was blanked. The conversation looked interesting to me, and I butted in without just realized what trouble I'd got myself into. Please forgive my rudeness, I shouldn't have spoken like that to an elder. Masum Reza^📞 00:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not sure I see that this is clearly intended as a legal threat, though it is clearly intended as a threat. @Begoon: if your intention is to take your ball and go home, then please do so without spreading as much drama as possible hither and yon with no apparent purpose other than to stir up drama. We appreciate your contributions over these many years, and we should be happy to welcome you back should you return. But if you are here, you should be here for the purpose of contributing to Commons, not for the purpose of importing disputes from other projects. That's not a thing we are in the business of doing, and if that is your business here, then you are not in the business of doing what we do. GMG^talk 14:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• As a separate issue rather than creating a tangent here, I will take up the harassing comment by an obvious sock account at SPI (link) as there appears to be more than coincidental vandalism going on. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Support Block User:Begoon for one week because of attacking a voter needlessly on an RFA[6][7] and causing all the future wikidramas particularly this one. No need to direct f words towards other users on Commons, which is an international (i.e., multicultural and multilingual) project and community, and users should behave respectfully. One may use such words freely on their homewiki (i.e., enwiki in this case), but we Commoners should not let using such words become normal and commonplace here. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment Begoon seems to be on a self destructing path, and there is a clear need to cooldown, I think a short break is needed (not specially a block) if the quarrel stops. If the sockpuppet investigation were to be positive, that would be an indef block, there is no way to tolerade racism. --PierreSelim (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing a legal threat. Begoon's comment was certainly hostile and menacing, and these two should obviously back off from one another as they are both acting ridiculous. I would certainly support a CU looking into who made the now-deleted apparent racial slur. All in all this looks like two, now three, users engaging in needless escalations and I'd suggest they simply stop interacting with one another, or be made to stop if that seems necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't possibly understand why you didn't see a legal threat here. We have a clear legal threat by a user who has refused to communicate afterwards. T Cells^Talk 10:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• For clarification, "I'll have no option other than to pursue action against you for baseless slander" reads as a legal threat as "slander" is rarely used outside the context of its legal meaning, and despite several subsequent edits, "pursue action" has not been explained apart from the commonly used plain English for a threat of legal action (as demonstrated by checking any dictionary for "pursue an action"). It is worth highlighting that T Cells has their real-life name associated with their account, making legal threats far more worrying and disruptive than they would be for anonymous users. --Fæ (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment Has anyone considered just asking Begoon if their comment was intended as a legal threat instead of speculating? @Begoon: , did your comment imply pursuing "IRL legal stuff" against T Cells? Could you clarify that point? If so, your account should be blocked. Strakhov (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  You may not be aware of diff, which in addition to later responses at their home project talk page, was a clear quit. They may be uninterested in responding on this project any further than they already have. --Fæ (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Well. 1) That "quit" was posted in en.wikipedia, not here. And 2) that "quit" was posted several days ago before they engaged in conversations here. I do not discard the possibility of they, in fact, being gone for good. If so, I think we should assume they didn't imply lawyering outside Wikimedia Projects against T Cells. I may add that the racist attack issue should have been brought to COM:CHECK instead of accusing them in the RFA, although I understand the frustration after receiving that nasty attack may have lead to not acting in a proper manner. I do not know this person a lot but from what I've seen... I tentatively agree with Masum Reza's comment, they don't seem "the kind of guy who I think would engage in sockpuppetry". Strakhov (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Strongly oppose any action against Begoon. There was no harassment and no legal threats. AshFriday (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment If it wasn't intended as a legal threat, it was one of the worst-worded non-threats I've ever read. In line with what Fæ said above, speaking of "pursu[ing] action … for slander" is about two hairs away from an outright statement of filing a lawsuit. - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment While I sympathize with T Cells, I don't think he should have accused Begoon of sockpuppeting without any concrete evidence. I have had positive interaction with Begoon and he isn't the kind of guy who I think would engage in sockpuppetry. @Begoon: please don't grave dance over his enwiki block. I don't support a block of you at the moment but if you continue, I may have to change my opinion. And an interaction ban may in be order. As T Cell said, image reviewer and administrator rights aren't given "by mistake". T Cell has proven that he has sufficient knowledge of copyright to be an image reviewer. Masum Reza^📞 00:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• My humble opinion. T Cells urgently has to provide evidence for his claim that the racist LTA account is Begoon's sock. Otherwise, it is T Cells who has to be blocked, and this should be then a very long block... --A.Savin 11:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  The case was raised along with the timelines at SPI. As the abusive account was smart enough to mask themselves, the CU results were reported as inconclusive. The recommendation to T Cells should be to use SPI in a neutral way rather than challenging someone directly. Generally speaking, nobody should be worried about creating SPI requests for obvious sockpuppetry and threatening blocks for asking about racist harassment is not helpful. When joe job tactics are being used by a troll to put others in the frame as may be the case here, it is better to get on and quickly request CU for parties directly involved, rather than scare people off ever asking questions or using SPI by there being a presumption of bad faith and a threat of being blocked. --Fæ (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  If the CU result is set as incolclusive and T Cells is not able to provide any other evidence, he should be blocked at least 1 month for accusing a good-faith user of making hate comments. Begoon's reaction is unfriendly but understandable given such severe attack. --A.Savin 14:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  No. Threats, demanding apologies and ordering people repeatedly to fuck off or piss off are not made in good faith. This is classic disruption and bad faith tactics. "Inconclusive" does not prove anything about the sockpuppeteer, by definition. --Fæ (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  a) "Good-faith user" doesn't have to mean that all their comments are mellow, it just means that it's not an LTA or vandalisme-only account, and contributed productively over time. This is definitely the case wrt Begoon. Otherwise, we have to block also some long-term accounts that sometimes call other users "insufferable wanker" or the like.

  b) "Inconclusive" means that there is no evidence of sockpuppet accusations, simple as it is. So, T Cells made severe suckpuppet accusations, did not provide evidence, and did not apologize. If this is not a heavy personal insult, then I really don't know what is one. --A.Savin 14:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  In my experience dealing with cross-wiki trolls, this is probably just a troll, of the type that haunts off-wiki sites that do essentially nothing but monitor high-profile on-wiki discussions. Unfortunately, in the current ecosystem of the internet, one has to occasionally shrug off bottom-feeders and vagrants, as you shrug off the person on the subway having a heated argument with the floor. That's not especially comforting advice, but if it's any consolation, if they see you as a target, it usually means you're doing at least something right. GMG^talk 15:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment In my POV, they're both in the wrong. Begoon shouldn't dig at something that happened 4 years ago. Yes, T Cells did something wrong in the past, but I believe that he has learnt from his mistakes and is trying to improve himself and contribute to projects. On the other hand, T Cells shouldn't accuse Begoon of this apparent sockpuppetry without clear evidence. Conflict between two users does not immediately mean that one did something that is not acceptable. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 12:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Southpark56

• Southpark56 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. really everything was copyvio. I blocked Southpark for a week and will delete his last remaining contributions. Taivo (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Anónimo1976

Anónimo1976 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Escape block (Namest 2003 (talk · contribs)) same files related to, especially File:Sara Fernández Navidad.jpg. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked and tagged the user and deleted some obvious copyvios. Taivo (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding to the deletions of Image

Hello. Got a problem with a user here.

This user erroneusly tags my images as speedy copyvio. Look at this one. Although I'm tagging it wrongly (this work doesn't belong to me), it is a derivative of a work that existed in Commons. He didn't even attempt to search it! Although this is a simple case (I would like it to be deleted, but with my own will), maybe several other speedy copvio has existed with a similar case.

Tagging several of my images with copyvio (see my user talk, number 2-5, 8-9) under the reason "Small image without EXIF, unlikely to be own work". Do you know about sending images from WhatsApp? I've given a clear reason regarding to these problems in his talk page.

About the "Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required" reason. Yes. This image is transferred from my Facebook. I think I wouldn't have to sacrifice my privacy in Commons to save a picture.

About the sky. How would the user so sure that the image was a copyvio? How would the user was so sure about the derivative. No. All of the image was made by photoshop, myself (I would like it to be deleted, but with my own will).

What can I learn from these cases?

1. Always try to confirm with the user regarding to the status. If the user doesn't respond in seven days, it's up to you.
2. Referring to number one : don't judge an image by its EXIF.
3. Check and recheck: Use tools such as TinEye or Google Images.

Thanks.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm here to response to Jeromi's comment. I apologise for the tagging of copyrighted logo, but it is better for you to state where the logo is derived from. For small images without EXIF, they may be cropped from other large (and copyrighted) files. There is a concern of copyvio and subject to a more careful review. For images with Facebook Metadata, there is a chance that the user just grabbed them from a random Facebook user and pretend to be their own work. They also have copyvio concern. To conclude, if the images is taken by yours, why not you upload the original file, through your smartphone or laptop. With a clear EXIF data on the image, this can avoid all the copyvio concern, regards. --A1Cafel (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• @A1Cafel: One word: missing.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Raju Martin

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

Continues copyvios despite previous block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Mr Vijay Browbby Rathore

Mr Vijay Browbby Rathore (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues OOS uploads despite previous block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Blocked for a month this time. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 19:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Alexanderrludwig

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

Per Commons:Username policy, posting copyrighted images of Alexander Ludwig. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. At moment all his uploads are deleted. No other action is needed now. Taivo (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Q douglasii and Dragovit

These two users are fighting each-other through deletion requests and reverts. This popped up through a page on my watchlist, as a legitimate work seems to have been caught in their crossfire.

Examples of deletion requests by Dragovit are Commons:Deletion requests/ and Commons:Deletion requests/, citing "miserable poor-quality picture" and "historical inaccuracies" as reasons, the former being rather impolitely stated and the rather not supported by arguments. (Mind you, there is the obvious issue of these files being cobbled together without proper attribution). Further comments indicate that this might also be a continuation from conflict on the English Wikipedia.

In retaliation (?), User:Q douglasii seems to be targeting files of other users concerning same subjects, presumably the ones preferred by Dragovit. An example is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Bohemia.svg, which falsely claims copyright violation even though the obvious PD source is clearly cited on the file page, which Q douglasii apparently tried to obscure by editing the file page and filing another deletion request on the source file.

I don't know who started this fight or who is in the right or wrong, or if my summary is correct, but I would very much like this to be over before more unrelated files are caught in the crossfire. The comments in the deletion requests seem to indicate that an earlier attempt to talk this out didn't succeed. Tom-L (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Exactly as you says here. This matter began a few days ago, when User:Q douglasii started uploading new files in bulk on January 3, 2020 and inserting them in several articles. It's obvious that these files are historically inaccurate, fictitious (without references to sources, only short descriptions) and graphically poor quality and these all are in bad format (jpg, png). He was warned by another person (article Electorate of Bavaria), that picture, what he used, isn't authentic. It's obvious that the user started to create these files without the necessary knowledge of the issue, all his creations have the same flaws – wrong coats of arms, different crowns, inaccuracies etc. And of course, these all are duplicates, because Wikimedia Commons already have better files for several years, no one needed to replace or question them. He began replacing these decent files, which are historically accurate, graphically perfect, and in the correct vector format (svg) made by other users by his own poor quality duplicates. I find this insensitive, arrogant, egoistic, selfish and vandalous to the site, to these users and their works and also to the community. Neither Wikipedia nor Wikimedia are personal pages of one individual, which he seems to think. An attempt to achieve some consensus was made, but unsuccessfully. I answered to him on his user talkpage, that his Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Bohemia is totally false and never existed. We discussed about it, but he felt offended and after completely erased it to eliminate all traces. Anyone can find that. Therefore, I suggested these files to be deleted, because I consider them false or innacurate, non-historical/fictional, poor-quality duplicates and useless. As a revenge he began to demand the deletion of files that are flawless. At the same time he began to blame me for vandalism, stalking and so on. I am quite shocked by this behavior. I have never encountered the fact that one day a some user began "invasion" of own files and remove all which doesn't fit his expectations, I presume it causes damage to the articles and whole site, reducing value and credibility. The fact that I wanted to prevent this behavior is right. It is common practice that poor-quality or inaccurate files are instantly replaced by other better and more accurate. Wikimedia Commons already has enough suitable images, definitely does not need these files, only takes up space. – Dragovit (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

All 500 of Dragovit’s recent edits have been to remove or destroy everything I have contributed! NOTHING was done to Dragovit! This is NO fight.

That is a one-person campaign of mischief, mayhem, and Wikihounding. NOTHING was done against Drabovit! Note the incoherence and lack of proofreading in Dragovit’s angry, rambling retort.

My contributions are historically accurate and referenced in the files and in the categories. Dragovit has been removing the references. As a trained historian, I can vouch for the accuracy, but the references to primary sources in the files and their categories should suffice. Why would Dragovit spend day after day vandalizing, reverting, and attempting to remove everything I have contributed? Why the obsession?

500 edits—all done in an imaginary fight against a random stranger. I have done NOTHING in return.

This is not a dispute, or a “fight,” but an issue of spam and WIKIHOUNDING. Why is this allowed to go on?

Dragovit has made little or NO contribution of their own here. They also filled my talk pages on Wikipedia with threats and Personal Attacks, which were removed. I do not know why Dragovit has been doing this. We have no history and I never ran into their account before.

They started this out of the blue. Their history at Wikpedia shows that they have done this to others before and have drawn the notice of admins for cause.

The flag “of the other user” is from a commercial site selling coats of arms based on family names. Dragovit has been using that to replace work by others on Wikipedia. My guess is that they are angry with the Wikis and are trying to disrupt and destroy in revenge, including random users. I had left a Welcome message on my Wikipedia Talk page indefinitely, so I deduce Dragovit targeted me as someone who is too new to know better.

My single notice of a single, inappropriate graphic that Dragovit uses to replace other’s work on the Wikis is not “retaliation,” but a genuine concern. Should art from commercial sites selling products on modern American family names be used to represent medieval kingdoms? Why would that belong here? What about copyrights?

Note that the graphic taken from a commercial family names site is not “perfect” nor is it like anything historical, as Dragovit pretends. It shows a knight’s helmet in grey with a crude coronet also in grey, with yards of orange and grey fabric. That may be nice for a family to display their family name in an album, but why would Dragovit be replacing Wikipedians’ work with it?

Owing to the shameless violation of the rules and the aggressive, repetitive disruption of the community I request a permanent IP ban of Dragovit.

All 500 of Dragovit’s edits were used to attack the community without any discernible motive. Dragovit has done this before, and they will do it again.

Look at the mass spam from Dragovit on my Talk pages! There is nothing from me against them or anyone. This is a one-person campaign against the Wikis by Dragovit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q douglasii (talk • contribs) 22:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, Q douglasii (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No, no threats or personal attacks have occurred and do not exist, these are just rumors and lies, unfortunately. You've only been notified that your files are useless. Wikimedia has enough of its own files and you just flood the site by uploading poor-quality/amateur ones. File made by User:Samhanin has no defect and is placed in the article for a long time, based on Hugo Gerhard Ströhl's work, he was the famous austro-hungarian heraldist, his work does not come from pages about American family names, as you say, it is just your false accusation, you suggested deleting that file for no reason. – Dragovit (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A quick look at the History of the Talk pages on Wikipedia will show that you aggressively made a series of personal attacks, insults, and threats. You even took over my Talk pages until an admin intervened. I was nice to you. I even completed some graphics at your request to appease you. You have done nothing but attack me and the community and have made NO contributions. You have undertaken an imaginary fight against a random stranger who has done NOTHING to you. Why are you here? Q douglasii (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I am here as a person, who stop your devastation and devaluation of the articles. All these your accusations about me are nonsences. I ask, still again and again, why do good-quality and accurate files have to be replaced by poor-quality and innacurate ones? But still in vain. What do you not understand that the files you bulk upload are crappy? High opinion about yourself? You are not able to create these images. You do not have the necessary graphics skills. You have no knowledge of history and heraldry. There are many reasons why you shouldn't do it, just think about it. Don't try to divert the topic and attention elsewhere. It's unquestionable, that the Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Bohemia you created never existed, it's definitely fake. Also the other arms of the imperial electorates are also worth nothing, they should be deleted and not replace the successful ones. There is a lot of historical inaccuracies (as a wrong crowns), graphic poor-quality (the lion looks like a blind cat or monkey without eyes), defects (as a blue spots on white field), anachronistic (randomly created lions and eagles etc.), just ugly and useless. From the graphic design point of view these are primitive collages, and also all in bad format. There are many reasons to consider not being used. This has nothing to do with personal matters.
→ Kingdom of Bohemia: Why this and this are better than this?
→ Electoral Palatinate: Why [8] is better than this or this?
→ Electorate of Bavaria: Why [9] is better than this?
→ Margraviate of Brandenburg (flag): Why [10] is better than this?
→ Margraviate of Brandenburg: Why [11] is better than this?
→ Duchy of Prussia: Why this is better than this?
→ Electorate of Hannover: Why [12] is better than this?
→ Electorate of Saxony: Why [13] is better than this?
→ Electorate of Württemberg: Why this is better than this?
or this, [14], [15], this?
These files are not more accurate just because they have a randomly generated crown or electoral hat. In the discussion at your personal talkpage, we discussed that you had confused the historical Crown of Saint Wenceslas with the crown, which is here as "Heraldic crown of the King of the Romans"(!!!) and the lion you delivered from the modern EU heraldry(!!!). Only those who know nothing about history can do this mistakes. Just primitive collages, and nothing more. There were no personal attacks or anything like that. – Dragovit (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I came to this debate page at the request of User: Dragovit. Of course, this debate is relevant to me. First, I think it's a problem that Q douglasii tried to delete my redrawing file. Q douglasii's request was clearly based on false information. And he deliberately changed the description of my redrawing file. I think these actions are clearly wrong. But I will hold back the answer as to whether the works of Q douglasii should be deleted. --Samhanin (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

That one file, by Dragovit/Samhanin is clearly plagiarized from a commercial website selling drawings for family names. A link to the host was provided. It is not relevant to anything in an encyclopedia. It does NOT represent the Arms of Bohemia. The use of fabric is good for a family name in an album but not here.

All my files are obviously excellent and superior; their historicity was documented until Dagovit removed the documentation. The documentation is helpful to editors and to the public. Files are not deleted for subjective reasons. Dagovit is saying “I don’t like them, so I am going to harass a random stranger who has done NOTHING to anyone.”

Remember, Dagovit has used 500 edits to disrupt the community and WIKIHOUND, all over a few, free bits of historical art that can help anyone who wants them.

Just look at all this. What a waste of space.

This is SPAM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q douglasii (talk • contribs) 01:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully request a permanent IP ban of Dagovit and sockpuppets.Q douglasii (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The only person who permanently threatens is just you. That's really ridiculous right now. There are no threats or insults from me here or anywhere else, it's just a gossip. No wikihounding, no 500 edits, all nonsenses, just only several reverts in some articles. Just answer my questions I gave you here, but don't you? Obviously you have nothing to say, so you resorts to gossiping. I'm convinced that your flood/bulk uploading of the duplicate images is a form of spamming, but I'm not sure. Wikimedia doesn't need these images because it has enough, better-more quality and more accurate, but I already said that several times. I am fascinated by how creepy and ugly this file is. Anyone see those blue spots on the white field? Fascinating that someone created and published it. Shame. In any case everything I wanted to say has already been said, everything is here. Now I don't have time to solve these nonsenses. That's all, I don't have the authority to do anything with it. Now it is up to the community to decide how to solve this problem and how to handle the articles and files, but if the community allows you to create these crappy images, it's likely to have more consequences. I'm propably just the beginning. Beware. – Dragovit (talk) 9:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Please protect Wikipedia!

The User:Q douglasii in his uploaded files instantly removes templates with links to vector versions and also templates indicating that are not official Coat of arms, which they really are, because they never existed and adopted. This his behavior is a heavy violation of the rules and should be penalized. These templates are intended for this purpose, they cannot be inserted or removed as someone wishes, they merely inform that there are vector versions on Wikimedia. These Coats of arms of the User:Q douglasii are unhistoric and just putative of the author, because there are no sources for them. The author did not procure sources to support them because there are no sources (depictions, chronicles, documents etc.), just NOTHING. These files just collages created by elements taken from elsewhere, some are random/generated or taken from modern ones. It's proven that these are fictional versions by his own ideas. The user re-uploaded some of his files again-repeatedly, which means that he don't know what it should look like. He does not have the necessary knowledge of history and heraldic rules, he create them as he think they should look. This is absolutely wrong! It is inadmissible to be placed in historical articles about real historical states! The Wikipedia is intended for education and inform, not for one's artistic realization or hobby and fun. If the author does not want or fails to have the necessary sources for his files, his creations should not be used in the articles, because there is no possibility of discussion about it. There is nothing to discuss without sources. He enforces its files through coercion. The user now creates another files and wants to replace many more! I'm not the only one who reversed his edits, someone has done it a few times, but Q douglasii cancels instantly everything. If it is to be effective, a step together is needed, otherwise this problem will take a long time. I suggest these scrap should be replaced or deleted immediately in the articles. Otherwise reputation of Wikipedia will fall and will become an unreliable source. We cannot maintain its quality level if there aren't enough active users, but if you are, don't overlook it. We can't let this happen, please. I beg you, do something about it. – Dragovit (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Uploaded files in details

Let's look at those files in detail. The User:Q douglasii assumes that all medieval Coats of arms have the same shape, one specific color and one beast (lion, horse, eagle etc.) thus all files seem to correspond to his concept of aesthetics and have nothing to do with history. He does not assume at all that the Coats of arms developed and depended on the ruling houses, just then much later were identified with the country. All coat of arms have the same royal crown and electoral bonnet/hat and it does not matter if the elector was a king, archbishop, duke or margrave, so it is also wrong. It is also common practice that the last historical coat of arms is used in article's infobox. The problem is that the user's creations do not represent any particular period, it is only a author's hypothetical representation of what a coats of arms might look like if were created in nowadays. In fact, there was no specific form and the coats of arms had different appearance, so it is misleading. – Dragovit (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The medieval Kingdom of Bohemia had an electoral vote in the Holy Roman Empire to elect an emperor. User:Q douglasii assumes, that Bohemia had its own electoral Coat of arms, so he created the hybrid Coat of arms with with combinantion of the electoral bonnet/hat and the german Crown of the King of the Romans on the top. However, this Coat of arms cannot be found nowhere. I told him that the Bohemian coat of arms uses the Crown of Saints Wenceslas and he made the change only upon my request, apparently he hadn't known about this before. However in Bohemian/Czech heraldry this specific combination has never existed. The author is aware that the King of Bohemia was an Imperial Arch-Cupbearer, so he combined the Coat of arms of Bohemia with the Coat of arms of Imperial Arch-Cupbearer as a inescutcheon, but this combinated Coat of arms cannot be found nowhere, never existed. However, he decided to replace by this file another one, that is perfectly fine and accurate. He placed it to an infobox in article about the Kingdom of Bohemia as a state coat of arms, which than was reverted, but he apparently plans to repeat it.
The rest is same as the Kingdom of Bohemia. The author is aware that the Elector of Hanover was an Imperial Arch-Treasurer, so he simply combined the Coat of arms of Hanover with the Coat of arms of Imperial Arch-Treasurer as inescutcheon. He doesn't care that he has no sources, and nowhere can this coat of arms be found. The red inescutcheon is possible against heraldic rules, because the background is also red and the coat of arms is not clearly visible. Such a coat of arms could not do its function anywhere. The horse was taken from the modern Coat of arms of Lower Saxony, today's state of Germany. The shape also matches with the modern Lower Saxon coat of arms. It is therefore a collage/hybrid of various heraldic elements of different Coats of arms, which are some modern, but the author doesn't care. All coats of arms are created in the same way. Appearance is same-identical as copied or generated via template. Everywhere is used the german crown of the King of the Romans (Kingdom of Germany), which is sometimes combined with the Electoral bonnet/hat. For the Coat of arms of the Electorate of Bavaria he used only Wittelsbach lozenges without the lion of the Palatinate of the Rhine, so he knows nothing about the influence of Wittlesbachs transcending Bavaria. – Dragovit (talk) 17:46–18:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Also archbishops have the same Electoral bonnet. The author does not care that due to their religious office they wore the archbishop's miter and this was reflected in heraldry. The golden lines are derived from one old depiction and do not occur anywhere else, apparently it was it's decoration on the picture and nothing more. Everywhere are crosses without these golden lines. The author simply does not respect history or knows nothing about it. – Dragovit (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

These are just duplicates and they are already on Wikimedia, the same and in much better quality in vektor format. There is no need to insert the same coats of arms, but even this user does not understand. He replaced flawless files with his, because he wanted his own to be there. It does not do it for historical accuracy, but for its pleasure and aesthetic sense. – Dragovit (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Self promotion

• InScaneYT (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• InScane (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Has continued adding self promotion after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inscane.jpg.jpg closed.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I have notified both accounts of this discussion. InScane, please note that Commons is not a vehicle for promoting yourself and your actions. One of your uploads have already been rejected by our community, and I have deleted several others for reason of copyright infringement and because we do not keep selfies of new users without constructive global contributions to the Wikimedia projects. Should you continue to upload such images, your accounts will be blocked. De728631 (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/InScaneYT also needs to be nuked. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible spam bot

• Tibor1964 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Might not be spam bot, but uploads needs wiping and edits reverting.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Uploads have been deleted, Tibor1964 has been warned. Any further uploads of this kind will result in a block. De728631 (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

BerrixGote

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

Abuse of multiple accounts by SirElliotSpootz (talk · contribs), same uploads related to little known entrepeneurs on Wikidata (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q78983510, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q78977469), same low-re images. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Uploads of uder Mr.AmanAhmad

• Mr.AmanAhmad (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user already uploaded self-promotional images before that were declared out of scope and deleted. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mr.AmanAhmad. Now he seems to uploading the same images again. Maybe this has to be put to an end --193.171.152.103 14:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

False own works

Gérald Garitan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) continues uploading historical photos, paintings, posters and derivatives of sculptures with bogus own works claims and Creative Commons licensing year by year, despite of numerous warnings. Since 15 November 2019 they’ve uploaded more than 1,000 such files. Is there anybody to stop them? Is it fine to nominate all these for deletion or somebody can fix the problem? --VLu (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter and EugeneZelenko: could you please take a look? No reaction at the talk page and 20-50 uploads per day like this. Looks somewhat weird for an autopatrolled user. VLu (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I blocked them for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

User:EDAYCOPYDIGITALMEDELLIN

User:EDAYCOPYDIGITALMEDELLIN has one purpose: spamming copy machine adverts for their store. I've nominated a bunch of their stuff for speedy deletion but got tired. Probably best to just nuke it all. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed and nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Rodrigo.Argenton

• User: Rodrigo.Argenton (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Some of Rodrigo's uploads are using {{Artwork}} template in a way it was never designed to be used, resulting files like File:Centro Português de Fotografía por Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (6).jpg displaying nonsense info (see "collection" field for example), and ending up in the maintenance categories I am trying to empty. I spend time to correct the issues, but were repeatedly reverted with some insulting remarks. My attempt to, explain the issues I am trying to fix at his talk page, got rather hostile response, and eventually failed when he deleted the whole discussion. Rodrigo is a great photographer with 67k uploads to his name, but he seem to have a problem with ownership of his files and with hostility towards others. He seem the be frequent visitor on this forum over the years: 2014, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019. Can someone else have a look at this? --Jarekt (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, hoping you have a great day.

I simply stopped the conversation, because the violence there start to grow. There are ways to talk with people; face a volunteer that have more than 10 years of contribution and send a link of a basic rule is not a away, and he start conversation with:

" Please do not hijack, mechanism designed to other tasks for purposes it was not designed to do."

I clean all the discussions after finished, and this is quite obvious, as do not have any of they there. And that was the case, he was not bring new arguments any more, so I stopped the conversation.

The problem is not {{Artwork}} (that now that I have time to edit, I separated the edits, and it is exactly as he left it), the removal of the "digital representation of" is the issue. He did not substitute it, he simply removed, that what I was trying to revert.

I was on mobile, and yes, I could wait, but I did not know that this was super important to him, into a point that he had to revert two times and declare that this was a hijack, I just wanted to keep the information that disappeared. And I suggested this alteration to him, he ignored and send me the link, so I stopped the conversation.

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 13:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rodrigo.Argenton: , I appreciate restoration of the earlier wikitext, without "Wikidata" field. However as you can see that did not solve the issue of {[tl|Artwork}} template pulling nonsense information from Wikidata, like already mentioned Collection used to indicate to which museum collection this artwork belongs. The problem is still incorrect use of digital representation of (P6243), which is supposed to be used for "faithful digitized representation of the indicated object or work" and is being interpreted by {{Artwork}} template as equivalent to "Wikidata" field. This photograph depicts (P180) the building but is not a digital representation of (P6243) it. --Jarekt (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Jarekt,

If you want to discuss this in a civil matter, we can talk. I was hard on you, because you set the tone, and even tough I was not "hostile", I asked you to read.

Send me links that are basal, use strong words to describe one action of my, and bring the discussion here because I cleaned my page and stop to talk with you, is not a good way to find a consensus.

The "collection" is a problem of the template, that is not only bringing problem in this case, I can see several cases, paints that are not in one collection, statues/panels that are at street... not my issue, so, again, this is not the proper place.

And if you apologize, we can find a solution together in another place.

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 15:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, the issue with "collection" is just an example and as people add more statements to Cadeia da Relação (Q9672205), the Artwork template will likely misinterpret them because it assumes that you use it as the documentation asks, for "images of artworks, especially those residing in museums or galleries". If you do not link the template to Wikidata (through "Wikidata" field or through digital representation of (P6243)), than what you see is what you get, but when it is connected than the template will change depending on fields added to wikidata. That is desirable if you use the template for images it was designed to work with, but unpredictable if you engage in off-label use. If you read the documentation of {{Artwork}} and digital representation of (P6243) property, you can see that both are meant to be used for artworks and not buildings, so why do yo insist on misusing them? --Jarekt (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, try to enter a new "digital representation of" in a new file. What you will see in the samples of possible entries is "Taj Mahal". Taj Mahal, the building.

And makes total sense, because this property is for bring informations already available about the object represented, without the need of the volunteer redo the work of description, especially the list of depicts.

Second thing, you are creating a storm in a cup of tea to impose your view that one template can not be used in the way that was not project for. That's the one way that things evolve, other usages appear, adaptations are made, and sometimes, the first usage is not even the prior any more.

So the problem is not the use, is the design, "it was not project for the building, and that's why it's showing problems", also not true:

See this: File:Memorial da America Latina salão de eventos (cropped).jpg.

This is a painting, this is a Stricto sensu of how the template was design for in your point of view , and yet, the collection is pointing to a location, not to a collection.

Another example: File:Arthur Rubinstein mural, Łódź Sienkiewicza & Traugutta Streets.jpg, this is not a building, this is mural, and have the same exactly issue that we had with the building.

I could give you thousands or more examples, but you are not listening, we could be fixing the issues, however you prefer to impose your view, and remove important information about files in order to keep one unwritten rule.

And again, this is not the proper location to discuss about a template, and I do not have anything more to add. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 14:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

MB-one

MB-one (talk · contribs) kept four sets of out-of-scope images:

1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iran Consulate Assembly 1931.svg
2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iquitos on Carna Botnet.gif too small to be useful and unclear copyright.
3. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AustriaHungary21
4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nova-Occitania legislative election Amassada 2019.svg

Talk page communication was useless, so here is a complaint.--Roy17 (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Several of these were fictional election diagrams created solely to use Commons as a webhost for an external website. I have speedied them on that grounds. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Don't forget to edit the pages of the deletion requests and update the status --D-Kuru (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Revert war on File:Wikipediabadge.jpg

2 users are edit warring on what seems to be an OOS file. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 12:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The uploads look like vandal edits. They were all made by user Pointy k.kumar sharma (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

In my opinion this just looks like a vandal account certified for indefinite block

--D-Kuru (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Protected for a week, COM:OVERWRITE, reverted to original upload. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a nice sunny day here so I reserve judgment on whether this is a vandal or someone who hasn't yet learned our ways. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Ducks

• Dr. Anup Kumar Sarkar (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Aksarkar02814 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Ducks. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 12:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hasn't had an ANI notice but I see there's an SPI on en:WP. Sockpuppetry is different from having an alternate account, but he's so new I don't see a need for this. I'll suggest he opts for one or the other and then I'll do the appropriate redirections. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Spam bots

• Qudsia11 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Qasimghani (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Spam bots, again, last thread archived too soon.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked Qudsia11 indefinitely and salted the associated file name. I'm not convinced though that Qasimghani is a recurring user, so for the time being I've warned them. De728631 (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I indeffed Qasimghani as well as their next sock Rumaisa12. --Achim (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Achim55 shall I report them anymore? Category:Https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard Abuse filter should auto block any account that uploads files with that...--BevinKacon (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Uploads by Tiago Ghidotti

• Tiago Ghidotti (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user uploaded a bunch of images that were copyvios ( eg. this one that could have been taken from here or any other page google shows for that image) or are out of scope (like this one, the description says he is "CEO EGOBrazil". He looks more like an Influencer from Instagram, the image looks very much like a copyvio as well; see also this one (deleted image, admin only). I know that images that are in use on any Wikipedia page are declared to be not out of scope, however, the article as such looks very much like self promotion or advertising of a non relevant organisation so it would be out of scope by Wikipedia rules as well.
Because he continued to upload the same copyrighted images, I warned him, warned him twice and than gave him a rest for a week (aka I blocked him). He send me a mail to unblock him and I warned him again that he must not upload copyrighted content (mail and my answer is on his talk page). He did it again. I would block him again now for much longer. To me all of my effort just feels like a big bunch of wasted time. Are there any contra-comments for blocking him? --D-Kuru (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• I wonder if we couldn't get a native pt speaker to try as a last ditch effort. Maybe @DarwIn: or @Teles: are willing to try? GMG^talk 14:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, Brazilian here, all of his posts, instagram, website,... are full of copyright violations.

  Just delete all and block, he is creating also a trail of spams and self promotion at Wikipedia-pt.

  -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 15:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him for a month (second block). Taivo (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Copyvios after block

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

Continues uploading copyvios after block expired.--BevinKacon (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done GMG^talk 23:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Continually violating QIC guidelines and gaslighting everyone about them

Would an admin ever warn a user to stay within guidelines that aren't described as policies? The issue in question is shown here:

• Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages.

Yet there is a user who not only denies this is a criterion for judging whether a photo is or is not a Quality Image, but also continually asserts that anyone opposing the promotion of a photo because it has an irrelevant or unclear name or is insufficiently or improperly categorized is in the wrong, using expressions such as "here is no quality categorisation candidates".

If you don't care about someone sabotaging COM:QIC to the detriment of users who come to Commons hoping to be able to find photos through a name or category search, let me know, and I'll try to stop caring about this issue and give up, because that would mean that admins here don't care about jury nullification of guidelines that were presumable carefully adopted by consensus for the benefit of users. If you do care, I will attach a username to the description I've just given and give you a link to one or more actual differences to look at.

Thank you.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Ralf Roletschek is a hopeless case. It is completely useless to warn him. He violates guidelines on quality, description and categories eversince he got active on QIC. I know what I'm talking about, because I had been active on QIC similarly long and Roletschek is one of the users due to their behaviour I have abandoned nominating anything on that page. If I would place a warning on his talk page, he probably would just rollback it (as he is also well-known for misusing the rollbacker flag; which is alas hardly sanctioned here on Commons). In particular, my humble opinion he surely doesn't respect. Recently he disqualified all my reviews on QIC of his own and Steindy's nominaions as provocations. I'm not neutral in his causa. I'm not sure if there is an admin at all who cares about QIC and is neutral. I would support a block of Roletschek. If he doesn't like QIC guidelines, he should establish his own QIC with blackjack and hookers his own guidelines. If he doesn't like Commons guidelines, he should go play somewhere else. Simple as it is... --A.Savin 12:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I hear you, but I think that the first step should always be to warn someone, unless they are a spambot, obviously vandalism-only account, or doing something immediately disruptive, such as uploading copyvios at such a fast pace that they need to be briefly blocked as an initial step just to slow them down. Then, once they ignore - or worse, revert - the warning, the first of an escalating series of blocks should be applied. It wouldn't seem right to me for the first step to be an indefinite block. I'm not sure I understand a need to be neutral about violations of policy or site guidelines, though. It seems to me, that kind of neutrality would destroy any wiki. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I kind of understand the intention here: you can have a great picture, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to deny that quality status because the category should be improved (just improve it?) or the name should be clearer. It would make more sense to discuss that outside of the process. If it is truly unclear what the image captures, that is another matter... (not an admin) Effeietsanders (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The place to discuss that approach isn't at QIC, but at Commons talk:Image guidelines, because it's an approach at variance with established guidelines set out in black and white at Commons:Image guidelines and would require a new consensus to change current guidelines and adopt it. At QIC, existing QIC criteria are supposed to be applied. Period. And what's worse than refusing to apply them is continually gaslighting everyone that they don't exist even though they are at the top of the QIC page! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

And this page isn't the place to discuss whether to change the guidelines, either, but I will state for the record that the entire reason to require meaningful filenames and adequate categories is not because the subject is clear or unclear when you are looking at the image, but that when users search for images on a particular subject, they won't find photos that have useless or misleading filenames or don't have the category they should. And now back to the topic at hand? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You chose to give a very generic description of a potential issue. I'm just pointing out, in that scenario, that other routes than warning/blocking may be available, and maybe other interpretations are reasonable. Whether this applies to the specific situation you have in mind, i'll leave to your judgement. Effeietsanders (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't ask for off-topic discussion or debate about whether the guidelines should be applied as stated. And I specifically want a reply from an admin. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Ralf is claiming he is at a disadvantage with categories and discussions as they're not good at English, is there any truth behind this? If the user disagree's with current QIC guidelines, he should be allowed to propose changes to gauge if other users agree, and we should advise them on this process. Allowing the user to air their concerns may help. Temp ban from QI would be a more appropriate step before blocking.--BevinKacon (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Really, is that what he's claiming? He understands well enough to pretend that QIC has no requirements for adequate categories. Contributions. Specific example of gaslighting. Remarks in German in a thread about whether a particular photo should be promoted to QI or not (not a thread where a change in guidelines can be proposed and voted on) about why categories should be ignored. Statement in clear English that he's not interested in whether a photo has a "quality description" (I'd add, it's not that he thinks the description is adequate, which is a legitimate point of view, but that, as he said "Here aren't the quality description candidates", meaning he claims it's illegitimate to even consider this a criterion at all.) I desperately need to go to sleep, so I won't look through his contributions to find other instances of statements like "Here is no quality category candidates", but there are loads and loads such statements in his history. And while I agree that he is not an advanced English-speaker, that's not the issue here. I do agree that an indefinite block shouldn't be the first step. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, tried to warn him in his language here is the result, in short. Roletschek declares that he is unwilling to respect the category and description requirement, as he deems it a "discrimination" of all who are not English-fluent. He ignores all further responses. Additionally, on Smial's talk page, he of course makes use of the occasion to trolling me and diminish my review efforts, meaning that if I oppose a picture that means it in fact must be good. No comment. --A.Savin 14:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simplest, then for the people who close discussions on QIC to ignore his votes? - Jmabel ! talk 17:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

That would certainly be easy, but would break the (unwritten?) rule that every contributor and every vote is equal. --Smial (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

It also ignores the fact that he is disruptive in discussions because he gaslights, not just because of how he votes. Instead, the idea floated above of suspending him from QIC is more meritorious. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Question - So what's the upshot? Once he engages in addition disruptive behavior, what will happen? Nothing? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  As the Partial blocks' proposal is about to miss clear consensus, it seems that the most logical way -- to block Ralf Roletschek from editing QIC candidate list only -- will not be possible. Given that, a full block of at least 2 weeks in case of further disruptive comments at QIC, definitely will be in place. --A.Savin 14:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Was ein "störender Kommentar" auf QIC ist, entscheidet dann also Herr Savin, der mich gerne sperren möchte? Ich soll meine Meinung nicht mehr sagen dürfen? Ich soll meine Meinung als Fotograf nicht mehr sagen dürfen, ein Benutzer, der keinerlei eigene Fotos beigesteuert hat [16] darf aber urteilen, was Qualität ist und was nicht? QIC ist doch längst eine Lachnummer, wenn nicht die Qualität entscheidet sondern Beschreibung und Kategorisierung. Es ist mir egal, eine Sperre durch Savin ist auch ein Ritterschlag. Dann habe ich alles richtig gemacht. --Ralf Roletschek 22:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    • So a user is too stupid to participate in image reviews just because he didn't contribute own photo? Wow, how primitive. Disgusting. --A.Savin 00:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Ralf, this isn't about your opinion as a photographer. It's about whether this site serves users or not. It's very clear that users searching for photos can't find them if they have misleading or unclear names and lack the categories they will look for. You seem to think this site is only for the benefit of photographers who contribute photos. It's not, any more than Wikipedia exists only for editors. As I said, all of us are greatly indebted to photographers who freely contribute their photos, but if users can't find them, just how valuable a resource is this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Du sagst es! Nachnutzer möchten Fotos finden. Aber sie finden sie nicht mittels Bildbeschreibung oder Kategorien sondern über Wikidata und Einbindungen bei Wikipedia. Über die chaotischen Kategorienbäume findet doch niemand was, wenn überhaupt, dann nur Leute, die Englisch auf sehr hohem Niveau beherrschen. Nachnutzer benutzen keine Kategorien. --Ralf Roletschek 19:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Dass annähernd jeder WP Artikel auf die entsprechende Commons-Kategorie verlinkt, wo jeder Nachnutzer sich sehr wohl ein Bild zum Thema des Artikels nach seinem Bedarf (und nicht zwingend dasjenige aus dem Artikel) aussuchen kann, und zwar ohne im Kategorienbaum stöbern zu müssen, ist dem Ex-Admin der deutschen Wikipedia unbekannt, oder möchte der Ex-Admin uns Commoner abermals für dumm verkaufen? Mit mir geht der Trick leider nicht, ich bin lange genug hier und kenne alle Nuancen. Falls Sie ein Bedürfnis danach haben, sich ein Netzwerk durch billigen Populismus und Intrigen aufzubauen, tun Sie das doch in Deutscher Wikipedia. Commons ist nicht wie Deutsche Wikipedia und wird es mit mir nicht werden. @Ralf Roletschek: Lassen Sie einfach Commons in Ruhe und man wird auch Sie in Ruhe lassen. --A.Savin 20:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want to be part of any type of contest you have to follow the guidelines. It really is plain and simple as that.
The name Quality Image may indicates that only the image's quality has to be looked for while judging the image. If there are guidelines for categorisation and file naming, the file must not be nominated for QIC in the first place, since it does not meet the requirement to be one. If somebody nominates a file that does not meet the base requirements, the file has to be declined!
Here and there I find well made images, that I want to nominate for QIC. Sometimes they are taken from flickr, so I can not nominate them. Why can't I nominate the files from flickr? Is this the Wikimedia-only images or the Quality Images? I want to nominate a GFDL1.2-only file for FPC. The guidelines exclude such images. Are these the featured pictures or is this a PD-images only contest? Only images by Wikimedians are allowed on QIC and GFDL1.2-only images are not allowed on FPC. These are the rules - as is filenames and categorisation.
I don't see the disadvantage for non-en users. There is translate.google.com and there are so many categories on commons that already exist and will help you along. Nobody expects perfect categorisation or flawless descriptions. When I search for a category for my image, I look on Wikipedia for images alike and check their categorisation. I check Wikidata and look if there may is some category already assigned to the item. I check main categories and try to handle my way down from there.
A word on Is QIC a joke. In my opinion there is a clear and unfriedly answer: Yes, QIC is a joke. Images that look like a quick snapshot shot from the hip in a clothing store or images that literally show a pile of trash are worth becoming QI, while well made images that show a certain level of profession are rejected, because they have a tiny coloured border (CA) around some edge. There are many problems with QIC, but this page is not the place to discuss it.
What to do with people who don't follow the guideline: Insta decline the images. If you can block them from editing a certain page, this would be perfect. I reject the block of a whole account though since, as said, QIC is a joke in my opinion and there is a whole Commons world outside of QIC that is blocked here as well.
--D-Kuru (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Only commenting here because a block seems like serious overkill. If anything, why wouldn't a tban be under discussion? I know they're not as common here as they are on Wikipedia, but the progression should go from discussion to warnings to tban and then block only as a last resort IMO. Ralf is a productive and valuable member of the community in other ways/areas, so it would be best to preserve those other forms of participation. In other words, yes, participation at QIC should be contingent on following the rules for QIC. If someone can't be persuaded to follow those rules, they can be prohibited from participating in that process (whether by technical means via "partial blocks" or just be instruction). Only if that prohibition is violated should a block be on the table. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

He has offended one of our most faithful reviewers, saying that he [Ikan] had not much to say on his [Roletschek] picture since he [Ikan] did not contribute own ones. From that point at the latest, Roletschek is not a "productive and valuable member of the community" to me. He is a toxic user, let's say the truth. And wrt toxic users, even Jimbo said somewhere on Wikimania or an other forum, that they are a net-negative even if contributed a lot over years. I know that German Wikipedia generally tolerates toxic users unless they begin to share politically uncorrect comments or get caught of sockpuppetry; but this should remain an exception and Commons should not fall that deep. --A.Savin 21:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Ikan has indeed been showing a reliable and objective assessment practice on QIC for a long time, so that I do not always, but very often, agree with his opinion in consensual reviews. Ralf's accusation is not factually justifiable. If Ralf weights the rules on QIC in his own way, that is his right. I too weight some rules more strongly and some less strongly. But what makes it unbearable in the long run is his habit of dismissing the weightings that other contributors have as complete nonsense. For me, too, file names are relatively unimportant as long as there is no nonsense in them or they are completely meaningless. Also for me category nesting up to the 42nd level is not a condition for a QI. But a car with only the one category "Ford" or a church only in the category "Church in Germany": That is too little. More important are halfway meaningful descriptions. A photo "Hans Meyer bildnummer12345.jpg", where only "Hans Meyer." appears in the description, cannot be a QI. But if someone regularly devaluates massively the wish of colleagues to demand a better description or a better categorization in such cases and does not accept it for himself, he should stay away from the QIC process in the future. --Smial (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

All such waste of time could be avoided if the users could choose not to oppose a QI nomination merely because of poor categorisation but add the cats by themselves. I suppose this is related to special:permalink/384503213#File:Butterfly_By_Ahamed_Rafid.jpg. How hard is it to change Animals to Butterflies? Not all photographers are insectologists and botanists. To oppose quality assessment of a photo because the exact species the photo depicts is not yet identified is outrageous and not conducive to encouraging photographic talents.--Roy17 (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I also thought about this and I did that for some images. I also see this from the other side: Why do I have to do this for the uploader? Why is it not possible for the uploader to place it in category Butterflies. I don't speak english is not an excuse in any way since there is Google Translate and there usually is a link on every Wikipedia page that links you to the category on Commons. I don't know the exact species is also no excuse since the file can be renamed and you can ask people on various websites around the world for identification. When I want to sort and translate descriptions, some images may only have descriptions that only translates into gibberish for me or depict a scenes from a places on earth that I have no idea where I should even start to search for (an example for the last one would be a temple in Japan I found, wanted to describe and categorise, but in the end was unable to do any improvement to). And why do I have to spend a ton of time trying to figure out descriptions and categories that the original author is just too lazy to add (yes lazy and not unable to do. Commons has many users and many of them sort quite good, the higher your skill and the longer you work on Commons the better quality is expected from your work. I upload the images you add descriptions and categories will work as good as you set up the scene and the camera and I press the trigger - it will simply not)

For a quality image you need a decent quality. If you don't want to spend the extra time to take the image in the required quality, the image will not become a QI. If a decent description is part of the requirements and you don't want to spend the time to deliver it, you image will not become a QI.

--D-Kuru (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Someone put it in Category:Unidentified Papilionidae. Including subcategories, there are 1500 images in there. Category:Papilionidae has 13,000 images, and Category:Butterflies has 120,000 in it. I am far from finding it a quality image that should be uploaded to Commons; when we have over 100,000 images of something, you should categorize it first before uploading it, to make sure that it's actually an image that has educational value, an image that should be uploaded. I'll abstain from nominating it for deletion, but not every pretty picture is in scope, and if it's not identified and just tossed in an "unidentified" category with over a thousand images in it, the image is not in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Such a narrow interpretation of the rules goes much too far for me. "The scope" is imho not defined by "perfect categorization". --Smial (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Narrow? Have we in the history of Commons had 120,000 images of the human penis uploaded? Or even 13,000? Yet that is an instant delete on scope reasons. Surely if we are really COM:NOTCENSORED, then we should be no quicker to delete pictures of the human penis than anything else.

It's not about "perfect categorization"; it's about having educational use. If we already have photos of something, having education use should be being at least arguably the best photo for use in some context. If the image is sitting a pile of 1500 images as unidentified, then what's it good for? To arbitrarily drill down, we have a wealth of photos in Category:Lamproptera curius, but at least if you can say your picture is in that category, there's a possibility someone might find it and use it. Not so with Category:Unidentified Papilionidae

A work is not out of scope for merely having a description; if someone in ten years uploads O'Keeffe Georgia Ram's Head.jpg with just that as the description, that's not out of scope. But if you upload a copy of the Mona Lisa, perfect categorization or not, it's unlikely there's any value to Commons from your book scan or snapshot at the Louvre. If you can get some picture of a very rare creature in the wild, it might not matter that we can't figure out which exact species it is, but again, we have 13,000 photos of Papilionidae.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Klar, laßt uns alle analogen Filme und Dias verbrennen, die haben ja keine EXIF und sind nicht kategorisiert. Bilder aus Museen und Sammlungen können wir auch nicht gebrauchen, sie entsprechen ja nicht dem Commons-Kategorien-Chaos. Und dieses "educational" ist der allergrößte Blödsinn. --Ralf Roletschek 16:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right; museums just screw things up with this whole "being picky about which paintings they show" and "bothering to label things". Here's one of those analog slides you're talking about, wouldn't it be so much better if I removed the information about where and when it was taken, and removed those categories so nobody was bothered about being able to find it to use it? And if you think that "educational" is not a goal for Commons, then make a proposal that COM:SCOPE is changed, because that's what it says.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

The following sockpuppets are solely focussed on promoting Sunnydevanand

• Sunnydevanand (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser), already blocked on commons by Jameslwoodward as a sock of Sunny1629 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) who is now Sunnydevanand 1 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser),

and, checkuser blocked & tagged on enwiki (SPI report), and needing some attention here:

• Itsmywayokok (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Aditya1577 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Sunny1577 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

-- Cabayi (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked master and 3 sockpuppets indefinitely, deleted their contributions and created a sockpuppet category. Taivo (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Wamerson2019

• Wamerson2019 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Back after this. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 15:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Turns out to be Special:CentralAuth/Fwamerson1302. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 15:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done GMG^talk 15:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Luiscamialvarez

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

Continues adding incorrect FR requests despite the warnings and removing SD tags. He does not respond to messages on his talk page. Same disruption on eswiki. —Hasley 16:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I deleted speedily his copyvios. Taivo (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

BolunLee

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

Continues copyvios after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

 Blocked for two weeks, deleted many copyvios, tagged many others... 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

CfD scope? (Military vehicles of the interwar period)

A CfD was opened months ago, on Category:Military vehicles of the interwar period. There was little attention paid to it - as always happens, unless a category is watchlisted, there's never enough notification to attract attention, especially when it's a pretty high-level, thus usually stable, category.

It was closed today, then used as an excuse to remove a lot of other categories in the "interwar" sub-tree. Despite a comment in the CfD about other categories that, " I am not nominating it for deletion or any other specific action at that level." These other cats had never been notified, or even mentioned in the CfD. I don't know how many were affected, I just happened to see Category:Tanks of the interwar period in the Bovington Tank Museum and Category:Interwar tanks in museums disappearing. There's a lot of cleanup still needed on this.

1. The category should never have been removed. The "interwar period" is a significant one for military vehicles. We have a whole top-level cat for Category:Interwar period
2. A CfD, open for months and still attracting no more than one sentence from another editor? That's no form of consensus.
3. Large scale tree changes like this should never be actioned on the basis of such an invisible CfD, with no attempt to flag it from other affected categories. Especially when they aren't even listed on the CfD.

@Joshbaumgartner: , @Auntof6: Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• So they've decided to go with bulk edit-warring now, and simply repeated the deletion: [17] (and a number of others) Andy Dingley (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• And now after that, open a further CfD on it! FFS! We hold a CfD before deleting the category, don't we? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Post WWII seems to be affected too: Category:Post-World War II armored cars of Poland Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

As I noted at CfD, Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) made a valid point regarding the tagging of Category:Interwar tanks in museums with the CfD notice, and so it is perfectly understandable that they missed the original discussion. However, the CfD process was properly followed and its results implemented on these categories. However, I have opened a new CfD at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Interwar tanks in museums specificly to ensure their raised concerns can be borne out in the CfD process and whatever conclusion is reached can be implemented. Note that the additional category just cited (Category:Post-World War II armored cars of Poland) was covered by a separate CfD at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Post-World War II weapons, likewise completed via the CfD process and properly implemented. Josh (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• CfD does not cover deleting other categories which have never been mentioned or discussed in that CfD (and that applies to the post-WWII ones too - @Themightyquill: )

When something like this happens, it is not an appropriate response to simply repeat that deletion.

Starting a second CfD, once you've just edit-warred the same deletions anyway, is ridiculous.

And after all that, these are still just bad deletions anyway, and uselessly weak CfDs with tiny support. The interwar period, and the cold war period, are bothi historically significant for the scopes here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• I was unaware of these CfDs and I regret they were not widely publicized; I’m afraid that the fragmentary approach used kept the number of participants and the discusion pages’ visibility low; yet the consensus thereon was inflated to affect a large number of categories. I vow for the reestablishment of these interwar and post-WW2 categories and for the reversion of all affected file page categorization: These are valid and useful and can be made to mesh seamlessly with by-year and by-decade categories. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: I am sorry you feel that way. It is perfectly normal for a CfD to cover a parent category and the natural children of that category (changing the parent from "Category:OldName" to "Category:NewName" would inherently include changing a child such as "Category:OldName in museums" to "Category:NewName in museums") without necessarily explicitly listing each and every such category. No one is edit warring here and the CfD is open for discussion on the merits of the case. Josh (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• So even now, with two separate discussion open, you're bulk removing this category structure: [18] et al. There is no excuse for this.

Not only should these be reverted, but you should be TBANed from making similar deletions in the future. We work by discussion here, not by trying to pre-empt other editors, whilst holding a false pretence of 'discussion' over a fait accompli. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

So, no response in 24 hours, other than some snarking over here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:3 ft 6 in gauge trams Can we wrap this up and revert this mess yet? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: I’m going to weigh in against your take on this one though, sadly. I see nothing wrong with a separate tree for gauges using feet and inches or whatever, but killing off the 1067 mm cat and not even keeping its sortkey under Category:Trams by gauge as |1067 thus ruining the sorting thereon is disruptive editing. Not to mention the fair and accurate point about most contents of Category:3 ft 6 in gauge trams being officially 1067 mm (see Japanese narrow gauge), not converted from 3ft 6in. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• This seems utterly absurd, both interwar and post-WW2 grouping are very useful and shall remain in place. I second the motion to re-establish all the disbanded categories. Ain92 (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• Also note Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Tanks by era. Ain92 (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The fact remains that the CfD process was followed for Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/10/Category:Military vehicles of the interwar period and the affected categories were changed per that CfD in due course:

• CfD Closed: After more than 2 months, Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/10/Category:Military vehicles of the interwar period was without objection and so joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs) closed the CfD. There were 2 participants in the discussion, which is quite normal for CfDs that do not draw objections; the vast majority of CfDs processed do not have more than 2 participants, particularly if no one objects to the proposal.
• Several other related CfDs were considered as part of the process, proposed by different users. All were unanimous in their support for eliminating this theme of categorization. While any particular CfD only had 2 or 3 participants, taken as a whole, it was a clear consensus by several users with zero objection.
  • Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/10/Category:Military equipment of Russia by period, proposed by Лапоть (talk · contribs)
  • Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Post-World War II tanks, proposed by Themightyquill (talk · contribs)
  • Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Post-World War II firearms of Armenia, proposed by Sanandros (talk · contribs)
  • Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Post-World War II weapons, proposal by joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs) to gather some of the discussion with a higher level of visibility
• After the discussion was closed, any user who believes that the categories should be changed again, including changed back to the previous scheme, is free to open a new CfD, make their proposal, and should that be the consensus in discussion, such a change would be made.
• Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) did not open a new CfD to voice their opinion and seek consensus to reverse the previous decisions. They also did not contact me to attempt any sort of resolution. I am not above making mistakes, and am happy to address issues raised and if I have made an error, to quickly fix said error.
• Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) instead took it upon themself to revert several of the category edits made, claiming their had been no discussion or at least not one they had participated in. This is clearly inappropriate, since category changes should be limited to non-controversial ones--potentially controversial edits should be raised for discussion. I am quite in favor of being bold when acting in good faith and making good edits to categories normally, but for any category that has been part of a CfD, any changes in contravention of the CfD are inherently controversial and should definitely have a discussion prior to making them.
• Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) went further by spreading their displeasure to other forums (such as here) and discussions, such as Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:3 ft 6 in gauge trams (a move which ultimately led to his use of profanity in that discussion), and even calling for me to be blocked from the process.
• Ain92 (talk · contribs) likewise took it upon themself to revert a few other edits claiming they are out of scope. Apparently 'Interwar armoured cars' are not 'military vehicles of the interwar period' in their view. Regardless of the validity of such a claim, the proper process would be to raise a CfD on the category, a step the user declined to take.

In short, after the closure of several CfDs proposed and supported by a number of users without objection, Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) and Ain92 (talk · contribs), clearly not in agreement with these, instead of raising a CfD on the matter and discussing it on its merits, proceeded to revert the changes unilaterally. The actual substance of whether or not these categories should be changed is a matter for CfD discussion, what is at hand in this forum is user behavior. To that end I have created CfDs for the offending categories in which all are encouraged to participate, and should hopefully lead to consensus on how to proceed. For my part I am more than happy to enact whatever resolution the CfD should lead to. I have processed hundreds of CfDs and receive a steady stream of thanks for taking care of some of the CfD backlog. I have on rare occaissions been rebuked for a decision a user did not agree with (<1% of the time for sure), but this affair is far and away the most ill-tempered and contemptuous response I have ever seen by a user to my closure of an uncontested CfD. Josh (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• You deleted a bunch of categories that weren't even mentioned in a CfD.

When that unsurprisingly raised complaint, you have wriggled in every possible way since. But still, you can't justify applying one narrow CfD result to other categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there stil any thing to do here?--Sanandros (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a whole list of categories have been deleted (and edit-warred to keep them that way) despite an invalid CfD process which didn't include them. The whole lot needs reversion. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

And image of me at a Wikipedia Page

The file cannot be deleted on that reason, because it is used (and even in multiple projects). Even if unused, the file is ineligible for speedy deletion, because it has good quality and educational value. In addition, due to large number of fans and impostors, anonymous requests do not count anyway, because Commons cannot be sure, who is behind the IP. Taivo (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Hi :) There is a image of me here: file:Fuck For Forest3-Mutter Erde fec.jpg

I have nothing to do with this project since years and really don’t want to be related representing it. I never gave the publisher any ok to do so. Is it possible that you delete it? Or help the user who published it? It’s about this image file:Fuck For Forest3-Mutter Erde fec.jpg. Thank you for your time! And ingeneral for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.10.143.124 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• The file was uploaded to commons 12 years ago.
• The file is in use on 8 language versions of wikipedia
• the file is reused at https://adictamente.blogspot.com/2017/04/fuck-forest-el-colectivo-que-recauda.html
• the file is reused at https://svetneziskovek.cz/inovace/zelena-pornografie-aneb-zachranovat-planetu-je-sexy

--84.162.19.167 22:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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

User:Marianne Casamance 2016 uploads

As listing 4301 files for deletion is quite disruptive, I am listing this here to see if anyone can provide an alternative solution, or explanation.

Since the end of the JPS68 aka Varaine discovery, I noticed many uploads from Marianne_Casamance (talk · contribs) also share the issues. After much pushing, their reason for this is "I could not explain what could have happened. I always put my own photos online, without any corrections. for a short time, JPS68 used my computer, due to a breakdown of its own. Did he take advantage of it to use my account, without telling me? I couldn't say." Bold added.

For the DRs, I would create a DR for each month of uploads, 11 in total (no uploads in December). All problem files I found were uploaded in 2016.

Whilst such a large deletion is not a desirable outcome, no solution could be found before.

Pinging of previous users from last discussion: @1989, De728631, Alexis Jazz, Masumrezarock100, Thibaut120094, Jules78120, VIGNERON, Hexasoft, Marc Mongenet, and Hsarrazin: @~riley and Racconish: .--BevinKacon (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

English: Maybe an alternate way would be for Marianne Casamance herself to list the files to delete. It would be more "clean" and it would clearly demonstrate her good faith. Marianne: what do you think?

Français : Une autre façon possible serait que Marianne Casamance elle-même liste les fichiers à supprimer. Ce serait plus « propre » et cela démontrairement clairement sa bonne foi. Marianne : qu'en penses-tu ?

Cheers/Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@VIGNERON:

Français : La liste est faite, depuis le 4 janvier 2020, sur Category:Files may uploaded by JPS68 with Marianne Casamance account. BevinKacon est au courant du tri, je l'ai averti le même jour à 16h36, avant qu'il lance cette requête ! voir User talk:BevinKacon#JPS68 upload. Le fait que JPS68 est utilisé mon compte, à mon insu, ne peut remettre en cause la validité de 13 ans de chargement de mes propres fichiers, sans distinction, ni preuves de la part de BevinKacon.

English: The list is made, since January 4, 2020, on Category:Files may uploaded by JPS68 with Marianne Casamance account. BevinKacon is aware of the sorting, I notified him the same day at 4:36 pm, before he launched this request! Have a look here : User talk:BevinKacon#JPS68 upload. The fact that JPS68 is used my account, without my knowledge, can not question the validity of 13 years of uploading my own files, without distinction or evidence from BevinKacon.

Marianne Casamance (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Marianne Casamance: Did you also share cameras with JPS68? If not, what cameras do you own/use? One would hope we could just go off metadata. ~riley (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

JPS68 has never used my camera. I sometimes used his camera, to show him some uses. But in rare cases. Marianne Casamance (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

We will need a list of the camera make and models used, everything else can be deleted.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Few year ago, i had a " KODAK EASYSHARE Z950 DIGITAL CAMERA " and a "PENTAX Optio M50". actualy, i use a "NIKON D3100" and, sometime my mobil phone "Blackview A10". Marianne Casamance (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Marianne Casamance: Are you sure? Do you agree all files uploaded under your account in 2016 that do not contain meta data of those cameras were from JPS68 aka Varaine?--BevinKacon (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Keeping alive from bot archive.--BevinKacon (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

NL19931993

• NL19931993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Kbq430 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• KKKNL1488 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• MMMcMaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Yet another user who hates nudity. A DR like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Just before my bath.jpg is just pointless, but the reason I'm reporting this here is because NL19931993 is a known sockpuppeteer and blocked on several Wikipedias, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kbq430/Archive. And the limited Commons history of this user is raising plenty of red flags.

File:Rencontre East Harbour 2.jpg is a file they uploaded which has OTRS permission, which now worries me. An OTRS agent should check if ticket:2019073010000565, ticket:2017111310011312, ticket:2016070210002479 and ticket:2019081710000829 are from the same person.

Pinging @廣九直通車, Bbb23. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I confirm that these OTRS tickets are all from different email addresses, though I suspect that whether some/all email addresses may be socks of a same puppet-master.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: and are the names in the tickets different as well? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Yes different names.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: considering it's all "own work", I don't trust any of it in that case. While using multiple pseudonyms is not against the rules, when a known abuser does it I'm extremely wary. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I've searched those images through Google images, and the results turn clean...廣九直通車 (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done I blocked NL19931993 speedily as sockpuppet. Now I'm going to speedily close some requests. Taivo (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ángel 22905 Olivares

Ángel 22905 Olivares, despite warnings, has repeatedly uploaded copyvios. Please delete all of their uploads and have them blocked, since they have decided to ignore Commons' policies. --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 19:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I am also resuscitating @Patrick Rogel: 's report from two weeks ago:

• Ángel 22905 Olivares (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

A.k.a. Category:Sockpuppets of Ángel Olivares Aray. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him indefinitely. Copyvios are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

CCC Arulogun promiseland parish

CCC Arulogun promiseland parish (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Abuse of multiplke accounts, same OOS uploads as Arulogun Segun Shigosag (talk · contribs). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 13:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Börje_Lindström

Apologies if this is the wrong place for this (I'm not particularly familiar with Commons's processes), but can someone have a look at Special:Contributions/Börje_Lindström and do whatever's necessary? I'm not entirely sure if this is a vandal or a good-faith editor who thinks they're being funny, but either way it's not appropriate. — iridescent 21:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I just warned the user for now. Let us know if this continues. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 04:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Nghi Mặc Huyền Khế

Nghi Mặc Huyền Khế (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues copyvios despite block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Blocked for 3 months. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 16:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Cathy Richards

• User: Cathy Richards (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continuously removing Category:Transgender symbols from the subcategory Category:Non-binary gender symbols, refusing to give reasoning for the edit, I suspect it has to do with a political view of non-binary identities (en:Transmedicalism or something else). I have told her that it was vandalism and that she needed to give reasoning for the edit, and she continued to remove the category without reasoning.

DiegoAma (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Diego, in my eyes, you started the edit-warring, please stop it. Cathy has explained well that non-binary is not the same as transgender. Also polyamory ist not the same as LGBT. If you still need to discuss the differences between non-binary, polyamory, transgender, LGBT and other, you better go to the talk pages. --SI 02:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Both users have been partially blocked from editing the page for edit warring. Edit war started by Cathy, who made two reverts without explanation/reasoning, but continued by DiegoAma. DiegoAma contacted Cathy on her talk page at 20:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC) and Cathy Richards reverted, using rollback, at 00:25, 21 January 2020. Rollback removed from Cathy for use in edit war. Total of 8 reverts by Cathy, total of 7 reverts by Diego. Users were not blocked sitewide to allow discussion. Reverted to revision prior to edit war. Please discuss here so that we can resolve this. A partial block was a privilege as there was grounds for sitewide block for 24 hours for each user. ~riley (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not convinced that 'partial blocks' are right to apply when there are neither policies nor norms for their correct application. Editwarring is either resolved by warning the parties that they should be having a discussion, protecting the page for a short time that is being EW'ed over in order to ensure everyone has time for discussion, or briefly blocking the disruptive party(s) from editing if the case is significant. In terms of the system, both users are shown as "blocked" on pop-up tools, which is unhelpfully misleading. I am aware of Cathy Richards because of their consistent contributions to LGBT+ topics and classifications, I have never noticed any disruptive behaviour previously, so am surprised that this was not an incident that the users could not have been simply warned and led to discussion about the meaning of these terms, which is probably the root cause of the reverts. A week-long block made without trying warnings first, is excessive use of sysop tools for these established contributors unless I am missing some of the evidence.

Partial blocks are not intended to be a substitute for standard warnings.

There are neither warnings nor block notices to explain this block and the appeal procedure at User talk:DiegoAma or User talk:Cathy Richards. There should be per blocking policy ensure that the user has been appropriately warned, preferably using a block warning template. --Fæ (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

As a related but distinct issue, DiegoAma has recently been making claims in deletion requests based on a child abuse legal case (1986 United States v. Dost). These are an inappropriate use of deletion requests to make disruptive paedophile allegations. Refer to User_talk:DiegoAma#Making legally meaningful allegations of child abuse --Fæ (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Fae, please stop these false accusations. You seem to be using this tactic recently in an attempt to silence editors who have a problem with w:lolicon images here. No one has been accused of being a pedophile. No allegations of child abuse have been made (nor could they since these are cartoon images). World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The Dost case was a child abuse legal case. Accusing others of loading images which meet those criteria are allegations of sharing images of child abuse. Here are the diffs, to avoid casual readers presuming the opposite is the "truth".

1. 2020-01-19 00:05 File:Something12345.jpg Nominating for deletion
2. 2020-01-19 00:04 File:Threesomegif.png Nominating for deletion
3. 2020-01-18 22:05 File:Meme 123.jpg Nominating for deletion
4. 2020-01-18 21:43 File:The Pink Bunny by Mister Theo.png Nominating for deletion

If you have a problem with me "silencing editors" and want to continue making allegations against me, then raise a thread about it and provide the diffs. Making legal appearing allegations against other editors of sharing unlawful images of child abuse or creating the child abuse images, is not allowed on Commons pages, you must report child abuse to WMF Legal. Asking that folks contact WMF Legal rather than attracting more viewers to what they believe is child abuse is a policy issue not "false allegations". Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The Dost case was a legal case dealing with nude photographs of two girls, 10 years old and 14 years old. The "Dost test" is a set of criteria arising from that case and one that is frequently applied by courts in evaluating whether a photographic image should be considered to be child pornography. What we are talking about here is drawings, not photographs. No children are depicted, only childlike animals. It is therefore impossible for DiegoAma to be accusing anyone of "child abuse" since there are no children involved (or even pictured). Whether or not the Dost test is being correctly used in this case is a separate issue. Even if we were discussing photographs, the test is applied to the images, not to the uploaders. It is not a test of whether someone is a pedophile. To suggest that DiegoAma is calling uploaders pedophiles is not only disingenuous on Fae's part, it is knowingly false accusation on Fae's part. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikilawyering. The images were put up for deletion the rationale of "Lolicon pornography, fails the Dost Test". We do not automatically delete Lolicon related cartoons, so the relevant part left is "Dost Test" which is only used to identify child abuse images. If correct that that should not be a DR, it should be reported to WMF legal, if not correct it should not be a DR at all by default. Whether right or wrong, it is factually an allegation of child abuse being used to game the system and create panic about child abuse images.

Your interest here appears to create tangents, ignore the evidence and fail to add any relevant evidence, rather than examining the demonstrated inappropriate behaviour of DiegoAma. If you want to raise sysop requests for action on anything other than DiegoAma, you need to start a separate thread.

Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not even sure how to respond to that. "it is factually an allegation of child abuse" No, it isn't. It really really isn't. No only has DiegoAna not accused anyone of child abuse, it would have made no sense for them to do so since there are no children involved. These are drawings, not photos. I don't know why you are defending the presence of w:lolicon on commons so aggressively lately, but please take it down a notch or two. And stop saying "thanks" when you clearly don;t mean it. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Dost test, you seem to be arguing that facts are not facts. When the allegation is that images fail the "Dost Test" which itself is part of child pornography law per the Wikipedia article, it is profoundly nonsensical to keep on arguing that allagations of failing the Dost Test are unrelated to child pornography. It's like defending the on-wiki use of abusively calling someone a kiddy-fiddler, because somehow that might be mistakenly meant as someone who like goats. To accuse the uploader, who claims this is their work, is uploading images that fail the Dost Test is to claim that they are uploading child abuse images. Doing this is misusing Wikimedia Commons for harassment by throwing around child abuse terminology in order to game the system and create sufficient panic about child abuse to get images deleted that might not otherwise be deleted.

Wikimedia Commons is not 4Chan. Facts and evidence are relevant here, not empty rhetoric and fakenews. --Fæ (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: I am an occasional contributor here. You are a well-known and prolific contributor. I know that it is only a matter of time before you try to have me blocked, but someone needs to call you on your bullshit. Your "up is down", "white is back" act doesn't work on everybody. No admin is going to block DiegoAna because of this nonsense complaint. You can keeping implying that I am a troll ("4chan") and falsely implying that I supported someone calling another editor a pedophile ("defending the on-wiki use of abusively calling someone a kiddy-fiddle"). All of those images are going to be deleted. If you want to make an argument against deleting a drawing of a child performing fellatio on another child, go ahead and make it in the deletion discussion, but please stop trying to get people blocked instead of discussing the merits of the images. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: completely agree with World's Lamest Critic; no one has been accused of being a pedophile, and no allegations of child abuse have been made. AshFriday (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Spambot

• Luria26 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Clearly a spambot, see uploads.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done GMG^talk 20:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Stream spammer

• Pritam Gosswami (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Spamming again straight out of block, should've been indef blocked first time.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done GMG^talk 20:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Likely spambot

• Mariamr2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Random uploads with links and no info.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done GMG^talk 20:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Bendybao

Needs a break due to uploading several copyvios despite warnings to stop. --Denniss (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Blocked for a week. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 17:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ángel David Olivares 2362229

• Ángel David Olivares 2362229 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

A.k.a. Category:Sockpuppets of Ángel Olivares Aray again. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done no sleepers. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

user:Allmyexesliveintexas22

Allmyexesliveintexas22 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user continuing copyvio uploads despite multiple warnings. --VLu (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. No copyvios after last warning. Taivo (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Marko Bodiroza

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

Escape block by Миодраг Крагуљ (talk · contribs) and Miroslav Mica Ilic (talk · contribs), same uploads related to Orthodoxy, same categorization (Category:Monastery). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him indefinitely and deleted all his contributions. Taivo (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Deliberate and blatant edit warring by Eray08yigit

User reverted an image without summary, he was reverted saying he hasnt given a summary for his revert, then reverted again without summary. Image: [19] User contributes: [20]. Bill497 (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The situation is not critical, because the map is anyway often re-uploaded and it is re-uploaded 5 times since last revert. In addition, at first you should protest on Eray08yigit's talkpage. Taivo (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

About Luiscamialvarez (talk · contribs)

Remove quick delete template without reason. After the reminder continued and refused to communicate.轻语者 (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Your next step is to go from a speedy to a deletion request. This is not especially disruptive as removing speedys that you think are incorrect is allowed. --Fæ (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: I agree with this, but he deleted the reminder at the same time, and he did not stop the operation until I posted this request for comment. It gives me a feeling of escape. When he deleted it for the first time, I also carefully reviewed it and found that there was no problem with this mark so I revert it. However, your opinion is also very important. I will consider modifying js to remind users that they can initiate DR if it makes sense to SD. 轻语者 (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. Some folks can be very literal with the procedure and are not obligued to respond to questions, or to keep notices. Escalating to warnings or sanctions has to show disruption which is a higher bar than failing to participate. --Fæ (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The user has been blocked. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)