Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 86

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

1989

Could an admin please ask 1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) to stop editing my comment (Second time). There is no policy that forbids me from linking to a YT video that contains a short clip from a TV-show because it's copyrighted. (Which means I can only link to PD video's, not even CC-material). Since I found my last encounter with this user to be highly toxic I would appriciate it if someone can step in and explain 1989 that editing another editors comment is notdone. Natuur12 (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

1989, please do not revert people several times.
Natuur12, I also think that link is inappropriate - not because it's copyrighted, but because it's a copyright violation. Funny though. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I reverted them one time. 1989 (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The video is "Suggested by" the network, implying consent. The clip is fair use anyways imo. One of the purposes of such short clips is commenting and criticizing the work. Besides, we don't know about any agreements between the uploader and the network. Natuur12 (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
There's no commenting or criticism there, and it's certainly not transformative. No way does that count as fair use. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I was about to make a thread a the COM:VP about this, but whatever, discussing here works too, fellow colleague. In situations like this, It'd be great if polices like en:WP:COPYVIOEL would apply to Commons as well. I see nothing of importance linking to a copyrighted video of vulgar media. It's not helpful nor was it represent what the project stands for, which is free media. Honestly, I expected better from an administrator. 1989 (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
That policy wouldn't be applicable because it applies to the external link section in Wikipedia articles. Taking the moral high ground doesn't suit you a bit. Natuur12 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay. Here's one that applies everywhere: en:WP:LINKVIO. In fact, it was mentioned as "See also" on the first link. Guess you didn't acknowledge that. 1989 (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
No, that section is also about Wikipedia articles. But I think that we both have better things to do than participating in this discussion. I know I do, and I do hope the same applies to you. Natuur12 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

How is linking to a YouTube video in a request for adminship, as part of a vote, not a discussion, even appropriate?--BevinKacon (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? If I have to vote for parlement, I'm allowed to do the exact same (though I would have to write the link using a red pencil) without invalidating my vote. In the US people vote for Big Bird as the next president. Is it appropriate to do so? Why not. People are just using their freedom without limiting the freedom of others and that's perfectly acceptable. Natuur12 (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Political vote spoiling is a private, anonymous act, RFA is neither of those, so this is a poor argument.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
That hardly relates with the main point of my argument. Natuur12 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It was never prohibited on Commons or any related WMF projects to link to external sites; except for obviously illegal content, which hardly may apply for YouTube, which has a strong censorship. In some wiki articles with no free picture available, there is a link to an external (unfree) picture as placeholder. So hopefully it is done now and we don't need to discuss. Further reverts are not welcome. --A.Savin 00:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

1989 you revert Natuur12 twice. Not one time. That is wrong behavior for admin. No matter if the linked content was legitimately there or not. You cannot enforce policy that you intend to suggest to COM:VP. When user criticise your actions, you should be more careful from doing so. So what, now as I criticise you, I should expect actions against me? -- Geagea (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Nah, I believe it was once, while my edit was undone twice. I performed my edit twice, but as far as undoing, it was once. As for your question, I've never took action against anyone who have an issue with my contribution. Unless they were very uncivil about it, of course. 1989 (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
You missed pandakekok9's comment about copyright, as example all my own works here are copyrighted, my last own work is still copyrighted. So yes, "don't link to copyrighted videos" is maybe not "a bit ridiculous" but doesn't make much sense in itself, as even the free licensed videos on Youtube are still copyrighted. A free license is in no way a surrender of copyright, excepted the licenses that are explicitly a surrender of copyright, and the CC licenses in Youtube are not. I'm neutral on the rest of the discussion. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
^What Christian said. If we don't allow users to link to copyrighted videos, COM:FV wouldn't exist in the first place. It's important to distinguish "copyrighted" from "non-free". As an admin and a "native" speaker of English, I'd expect you to know that. It would have been better if you said "non-free" instead of "copyrighted" in your summary (though I still disagree that linking to non-free videos in itself is not allowed, as there's no policy backing it). pandakekok9 06:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I did. 1989 (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. But you didn't in your revert. Regardless, there's no policy saying that linking to non-free videos in itself is not allowed. And definitely not linking to copyrighted videos either. pandakekok9 06:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Natuur12: You know I respect you a bunch, but you are in the wrong here. Regardless of a written policy on-wiki, "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry); cf. GS Media v Sanoma for a landmark case in the European Union." Given that we both know that the YouTube user is not the copyright owner and that it is copyfraud. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Josve,
The European case, merely a non commercial link in a random internet discussion, that doesn't count as a new communication to the public. EN-wiki policy is misinterpreting the case law. While I am pretty familiar with the Geenstijl-case I was not with Utah Lighthouse case. So I had to read a note, in this case Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc.: Fair Use, the First Amendment, and the Freedom to Link.The Utah case is about a handbook not widely available. The ruling has never been confirmed by any federal court. Citing the conclusion from the note: The Tanners appear to have used linking to deliberately dodge a previous injunction against posting allegedly infringing materials on their Web site. Linking was enjoined in this instance because it was perceived as an attempt to circumvent a court order. Thus, Utah Lighthouse should serve as a lesson that exploiting technology in order to avoid an injunction will not be tolerated. But, it should not serve as a signal that all linking will lead to contributory liability. Links provided in good faith should not pose serious problems, nor should the monitoring of links become a full time occupation. There is a world of difference between this, and someone who places a good faith YT-video of which the broadcasting network who is the copyright owner states: hey, YT-ing dude. We suggest you watch this video. The problem with citing court cases is that most of us, including myself don't have the proper skills to properly interpret such cases. Therefor we should rely on what experts write instead and base our understanding on (scientific) literature but that doesn't happen resulting in the misleading clusterfuck at that EN-wiki policy. Btw, violating copyright is a criminal act in my country so please be careful not to accuse me of committing any criminal acts. Regards, Natuur12 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

please change name

File:Tablica w Parku Pamięci Zbrodni Pomorskiej z 1939 roki w Toruniu.jpg. Please change the name to File:Tablica w Parku Pamięci Zbrodni Pomorskiej z 1939 roku w i. Grzegorz Nadolski (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. pandakekok9 08:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Alybaig004

Abuse of multiple accounts for the same uploads. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Alybaig16 for a week. Taivo (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

User:SamsonBVB

SamsonBVB (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) looks and acts like the known puppeteer User:Kay Körner and User:Blackwhiteupl who is blocked indefinitely.  MaxxL - talk 12:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


  1. English: I am not this user. I can also prove that. I also find that pretty discriminatory. He doesn't justify that either. I also made no elections or manipulations here by being multiple users at the same time. I don't think it's constructive either. Others also deal with similar topics because they are interested in them. I am not uploading data that already exists. I have the wrong topic here for a lobby. One can assume that. Many volunteers on Commons are missing for the topic of Pirna and Dresden. The reason is that I upload more than usual because there are no people uploading anything. I also upload stuff that will otherwise be forgotten. He gives no reason. Many use Wikimedia. He wants it the way he thinks and doesn't argue. So you can't just get involved with such users. He doesn't give the real reasons or would give false ones. Discriminating people according to a similar way of thinking or acting according to origin is against fundamental rights / human rights. He sees that I am one of the few people or the last person to upload certain great pictures that represent a state that no longer exists. It is important that you have access to pictures where you can see the former buildings that once existed. They are also very beautiful and unique in the world, in the sense of urban planning. I can prove that I am not this person or user. I'm not interested in that either.
Deutsch: Ich bin nicht dieser Nutzer. Das kann ich auch beweisen. Auch finde ich das ziemlich diskriminierend. Er begründet das auch nicht. Ich habe auch keine Wahlen oder Manipulationen hier gemacht, indem ich mehrere Nutzer gewesen bin, zur selben Zeit. Ich finde das auch nicht konstruktiv. Andere beschäftigen sich auch mit ähnlichen Themen, weil die sich da interessieren. Ich lade keine Daten hoch, die schon existieren. Ich habe hier für eine Lobby das falsche Thema. Das lässt sich vermuten. Es fehlen für das Thema Pirna und Dresden viele ehrenamtliche Leute auf Commons. Der Grund ist, dass ich daher mehr hochlade als sonst, weil es keine Leute gibt, die was hochladen. Ich lade auch Zeug hoch, was sonst in Vergessenheit geraten wird. Er gibt keine Begründug. Viele nutzen Wikimedia. Er will das so haben, wie er es denkt und argumentiert nicht. Da kann man doch nicht einfach darauf sich auf solche Nutzer einlassen Die waahren Gründe nennt er nicht oder würde falsche vorgeben. Leute zu diskriminieren nach ähnlicher Denkweise oder Handeln nach Herkunft ist gegen Grundrechte/ der Menschenrechte. Er sieht, dass ich eine der wenigen Personen bin oder die letzte, die bestimmte, tolle Bilder hochlädt, die einen Zustand darstellen, der nicht mehr existiert. Wichtig ist, dass man Zugang hat zu Bildern, wo man die ehemaligen Gebäude sieht, die es einmal gab. Die wahren auch sehr schön und einmalig in der Welt, im Sinne der Stadtplanung. Ich kann nachweisen, dass ich nicht diese Personen oder Nutzer bin. Ich interessiere mich auch nicht dafür.
Español: No soy este usuario También puedo probar eso. También me parece bastante discriminatorio. Él tampoco justifica eso. Tampoco hice elecciones o manipulaciones aquí al ser múltiples usuarios al mismo tiempo. Tampoco creo que sea constructivo. Otros también tratan temas similares porque les interesan. No estoy cargando datos que ya existen. Tengo el tema equivocado aquí para un lobby. Uno puede suponer eso. Faltan muchos voluntarios en Commons para el tema de Pirna y Dresden. La razón es que subo más de lo habitual porque no hay personas que suban nada. También subo cosas que de otro modo se olvidarán. Él no da ninguna razón. Muchos usan Wikimedia. Lo quiere como piensa y no discute. Por lo tanto, no puede simplemente involucrarse con tales usuarios. Él no da las razones reales o daría las falsas. Discriminar a las personas de acuerdo con una forma similar de pensar o actuar de acuerdo con el origen está en contra de los derechos fundamentales / derechos humanos. Él ve que soy una de las pocas personas o la última persona en subir ciertas fotos geniales que representan un estado que ya no existe. Es importante que tenga acceso a imágenes donde pueda ver los antiguos edificios que alguna vez existieron. También son muy hermosos y únicos en el mundo, en el sentido de la planificación urbana. Puedo demostrar que no soy esta persona o usuario. Tampoco estoy interesado en eso.
中文：我不是这个用户。我也可以证明这一点。我也觉得很歧视。他也没有理由。通过同时成为多个用户，我在这里也没有进行任何选举或操纵。我也不认为这具有建设性。其他人也处理类似的主题，因为他们对此感兴趣。我不上传已经存在的数据。我在这里说错了一个游说的话题。可以假定。许多关于下议院的志愿者都缺少关于皮尔纳和德累斯顿的话题。原因是我上传的视频比平时多，因为没有人上传任何东西。我还上传了本来会被遗忘的内容。他没有理由。许多人使用Wikimedia。他以思考和不争论的方式来寻求。因此，您不能仅仅与此类用户打交道，他没有提供真正的原因，也不会给出错误的原因。用类似的思维方式歧视人或根据出身行事是对基本权利/人权的侵犯。他认为我是上载不了状态的某些精美照片的少数人之一或最后一个人。重要的是您可以访问图片，在其中可以看到曾经存在的旧建筑物。从城市规划的角度来看，它们在世界上也非常美丽和独特。我可以证明我不是这个人或用户。我对此也不感兴趣。

--SamsonBVB (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

A couple of years ago I had the chance to watch (from a few meters distance) KK editing Wikipedia at a public computer. The way he acted offline and the way he writes his texts online is very special. Very special. I spend a bit of time to read Samson’s statements regarding a different topic on their own talk page. In Samson’s language I couldn’t find KK’s characteristic ductus – it’s quite the opposite: Samson has a way more educated ductus. There may be mutual topics between Samson and KK, but KK uploaded own photos, Samson uploads material from different sources. -- regards, 32X (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
User:MaxxL you need to provide evidence of such accusations, or offer to email evidence to admins.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Kingtn99

Kingtn99 (talk · contribs) - This user continues to upload copyvios image and already deleted images. One of his IDs is blocked in ta.wiki too. --~AntanO4task (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:AshFriday

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please, let us do something to reduce the deliberate project disruption by AshFriday, the single purpose anti-porn warrior account.

Propose that AshFriday (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is barred from voting in DRs relating to nudity or sex. Their contributions are disruptive and meaningless. This has been going on since their account was created and their declared battle ground disruptive mission is to remove "smut" from Commons. This is against Commons' objectives as defined in Scope to cover all educational content, including human sexuality.

Any reasonable analysis of their contributions to DRs will show literally thousands of comments saying the same thing, pointlessly cut&paste over and over and over again. Here's a summary of cut&paste DR votes in just the last 24 hours, all targeting nudity:

  • Worthless, poor quality, redundant and therefore out of scope.
  • Unused, low quality image uploaded by a sole purpose account.
  • Worthless, poor quality, redundant and therefore out of scope.
  • Worthless, poor quality, redundant and therefore out of scope.
  • Educationally worthless.
  • Educationally worthless.
  • Educationally worthless.

Sampling the AN achives also highlights:

The account block log includes two blocks in 2018:

  • Disruptive editing: 292 edits on commons, mostly drama & man on a mission, one previous block, two AN/U cases.
  • Vandalism: Please read COM:SCOPE. We don't need people with an agenda.

@Yann and Steinsplitter: as interested administrators who may wish to comment. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

unrelated tangent
  • This is a genuine mistake by User:Tuvalkin. I think they are simply unhappy with my policy-based category nominations and have confused my editing with that of User:AshFriday. FredWalsh (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Very Strongly Oppose: This nomination is petty in the extreme: basically, someone is annoyed that I use the words "worthless, poor quality, redundant and out of scope" to describe files which are, for all intents and purposes, worthless, poor quality, redundant and out of scope. The vast majority of DRs I've voted on were launched with a single sentence and deleted by administrators who saw nothing wrong with my statements. Literally hundreds of users and admins vote in precisely the same manner as myself, subsequently if this proposal is passed, it will set a very dangerous precedent for all of us. Consider the ramifications carefully: if I can be topic banned for nothing more than voting in a DR raised by someone else, so can any one of you. AshFriday (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Meh. I find him mildly annoying, but I don't see that he's doing anything actually disrusptive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose AshFriday is seriously annoying and clearly has a thing about nudity. But they have their uses - including tracking down all the penis selfies that get uploaded regularly, which are even more annoying. We accuse AshFriday of wanting to censor but wanting to stop him commenting on DR's is a form of censorship. As to his past behaviour, people do change. Lets hope he takes this feedback in a positive way and dials back the DR comments Gbawden (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Prosfilaes and Gbawden. If they want to vote delete on every out of scope images, let them be, as long as most of those votes are in DRs that results to deletion. I really want to see the deleted to kept ratio of all DRs AshFriday participated, which Fæ so far haven't provided, so I will have to oppose until evidence is provided that most of the DRs are closed as kept. --pandakekok9 11:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Pandakekok9: AshFriday can vote delete till the cows come home - if an admin disagrees and feels that a photo is in scope then we can keep the file Gbawden (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The statistic would be meaningless. If a bot mindlessly votes on 100 random DRs a day, it would turn out that the vast majority of DRs will close as delete, so a "keep" voting bot would be seen as "wrong" while a "delete" voting bot would be "right". The issue is whether a SPA pursuing a "battle" against "smut" for over 2 years is disruptive.
If you want, I could easily write a programme that adds a thoughtless opposite vote to every DR that AshFriday edits, this would "balance" that same statistic and would be just as single purpose and add just as much value to our consensus process. --Fæ (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per User:Gbawden. I’ve looked through the report below and can see why it could be construed as single-purpose account. However, they do not appear to have done anything serious enough to warrant a topic ban like this. FredWalsh (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Whenever Fae thinks somebody isn't "on his side" they will do whatever they can to marginalize that person's right to express their opinion. This is a perfect example of just that, and I believe it is Fae's behavior that should be examined,his near-constant belittling of the value of other people's opnions is tiresome and unproductive. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments and questions

  • @BevinKacon Yes, I've voted to keep images in 2020:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with intitle:"I Distribution"
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA).PNG
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Haplogrupo N (ADN-Y).PNG
AshFriday (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 Comment @AshFriday: Please remember this DR I launched had nothing to do with "nude & sexually explicit images" but had scope issues and images within were deleted for that reason. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
June 2019 was 11 months and several hundred deletion request votes ago. Not evidence of "no problem". --Fæ (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ I really think you should calm down; implying that I "have a problem" with certain types of image will not help your case. I've voted "keep" wherever I've considered it appropriate, the same as any other user. I certainly don't vote indiscriminately. For example I've rarely if ever voted to remove a file which was already in use, as it would, by definition, be well within scope. Why are you leaving out everything which doesn't support your argument? Is this a case of deliberate cherry-picking? AshFriday (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The data below is an automated search. By definition this is not cherry-picking by anyone. The "calm down" remark is unwelcome gaslighting. --Fæ (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
AshFriday So are expressions such as "Battleground behavior" and "anti-pron crusade" and "anti-pron warrior". In the interests of promoting a collegial atmosphere, I'm asking you to strike them as a matter of courtesy. AshFriday (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
No.
It is gaslighting to make claims about what is in another contributor's head, and is part of battleground gaming behaviours that are unwelcome.
This response by AshFriday has been refactored, as it was pasted in out of date/time order to be at the top of other earlier replies. --Fæ (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
LOL you've been making claims about what is in my head for the past two years. How does that work: you're allowed to "gaslight" anyone you choose, but no one is allowed to speculate on what you're thinking? In point of fact, your definition of "battleground behavior" seems to be extremely arbitrary; originally you said it was about the cutting & pasting of phrases like "educationally worthless" and a supposed "anti-pron crusade", now you're saying it's about "gaslighting". Ever heard of shifting the goalposts? AshFriday (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
An account that declares being on a mission of a never-ending battle against smut ([1]), cannot pretend to not be engaging in a battle just because someone else echos their words back to them. Facts are not claims or allegations. --Fæ (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Can someone provide some data showing the deleted to kept ratio of all AshFriday's DRs? Thanks, pandakekok9 03:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
    Added some data below. However the issue is not whether AshFriday ever votes keep, or ever has a valid delete vote as obviously some files get deleted, the problem is the all out disruptive battleground behaviour against all "smut", and the meaningless cut & paste phrases like "educationally worthless" which appear based on their anti-pron campaign rather than the illustrative or cultural value of the photograph. To see that issue, you can sample the content of the votes below. --Fæ (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Fæ Please elaborate on what you mean by "battleground behavior". During my two years on this site, I have never used foul language, rarely if ever made personal attacks and never engaged in edit warring. In addition, the word "smut" has never appeared in any deletion request I've been associated with. If you decide to reply, please use plain and unambiguous language, so there can be no room for misunderstanding. AshFriday (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Your own words
Summary by @Masumrezarock100: : in a DR earlier this year (diff) AshFriday's userpage states "Fighting a never-ending battle against copyright vios and smut." [...] This is NOT porn. STOP trying to censor Commons.
--Fæ (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ Show me where I've used the word "smut" in even a single DR. Also, why do you think that one word in one sentence on an out-of-date userpage constitutes "Battleground behavior"? I saw that word used by an administrator two years ago, yet you have never accused that person of having a disruptive agenda. AshFriday (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
A bot that randomly went through all DRs that mention "Spanish" and 95% of the time added "delete, educationally worthless" to the discussions would be disruptive. This is exactly what AshFriday is doing every time they see sex or nudity, they have even declared that as their mission in the past. Battleground behaviour like this is actively damaging to both project content and is the negative gaming of community consensus. --Fæ (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Racconish Thank you very much. AshFriday (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I have refactored this last comment. AshFriday, please do not put your comments above everyone else's out of order. --Fæ (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

AshFriday contribution reports

Taking the past 3 months here are the comments in DRs using vote templates, of which all deletion votes are in sexual/nudity related discussions and the single keep is not:

Votes to keep (1)
  1. 2020-04-26 00:21 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taiwanese Scooter.jpg /* File:Taiwanese Scooter.jpg */
Votes to delete (84)
  1. 2020-05-24 01:02 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mistress O Hammer photoshoot image 1.jpg /* File:Mistress O Hammer photoshoot image 1.jpg */
  2. 2020-05-24 00:41 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pápulas perladas.jpg /* File:Pápulas perladas.jpg */
  3. 2020-05-24 00:40 Commons:Deletion requests/File:۲۰۲۰۰۱۲۴ ۱۰۱۷۵۲unshaved penis.jpg /* File:۲۰۲۰۰۱۲۴ ۱۰۱۷۵۲unshaved penis.jpg */
  4. 2020-05-24 00:37 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Male masturbation with Penis ring and testicle dividers eventually pre-ejaculating Cowper's fluid 01.jpg /* File:Male masturbation with Penis ring and testicle dividers eventually pre-ejaculating Cowper's fluid 01.jpg */
  5. 2020-05-23 00:11 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Foreskin retraction flaccid penis.webm /* File:Foreskin retraction flaccid penis.webm */
  6. 2020-05-23 00:06 Commons:Deletion requests/File:An adult circumcised penis.jpg /* File:An adult circumcised penis.jpg */
  7. 2020-05-23 00:03 Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Maddibay /* Files uploaded by Maddibay (talk · contribs) */
  8. 2020-05-19 00:44 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Non-consensual pornography in India-NCII.pdf /* File:Non-consensual pornography in India-NCII.pdf */
  9. 2020-05-17 00:05 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ulf Larsen with two girls 06.jpg /* File:Ulf Larsen with two girls 06.jpg */
  10. 2020-05-17 00:00 Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Carlos y jasmin /* Files uploaded by Carlos y jasmin (talk · contribs) */
  11. 2020-05-16 23:58 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Japanes woman Upbody.jpg 20200516 /* File:Japanes woman Upbody.jpg */
  12. 2020-05-16 00:48 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Penis foto.jpg /* File:Penis foto.jpg */
  13. 2020-05-15 01:34 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Penile nerve block dorsal.jpg /* File:Penile nerve block dorsal.jpg */
  14. 2020-05-15 01:32 Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Male Masturbation /* Files in Category:Male Masturbation */
  15. 2020-05-15 01:31 Commons:Deletion requests/File:استنماء القضيب الذكري.jpg /* File:استنماء القضيب الذكري.jpg */
  16. 2020-05-15 01:30 Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fooogie89 /* Files uploaded by Fooogie89 (talk · contribs) */
  17. 2020-05-13 01:10 Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Midagedman /* Files uploaded by Midagedman (talk · contribs) */
  18. 2020-05-13 01:09 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erect penis693.jpg /* File:Erect penis693.jpg */
  19. 2020-05-12 00:09 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Penis erecto.jpg /* File:Penis erecto.jpg */
  20. 2020-05-12 00:08 Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mnewton94 /* Files uploaded by Mnewton94 (talk · contribs) */
  21. 2020-05-12 00:07 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Toon nude.jpg /* File:Toon nude.jpg */
  22. 2020-05-11 00:59 Commons:Deletion requests/File:A HOT guy that I work with.jpg /* File:A HOT guy that I work with.jpg */
  23. 2020-05-09 23:28 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lickingpenisclean.webm /* File:Lickingpenisclean.webm */
  24. 2020-05-09 01:07 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naked wife.jpg /* File:Naked wife.jpg */
  25. 2020-05-09 01:01 Commons:Deletion requests/File:고추.png /* File:고추.png */
  26. 2020-05-07 23:52 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Glanspenisex.jpg /* File:Glanspenisex.jpg */
  27. 2020-05-06 22:33 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Puliamea.jpg /* File:Puliamea.jpg */
  28. 2020-05-05 23:50 Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Corlesmet /* Files uploaded by Corlesmet (talk · contribs) */
  29. 2020-05-05 23:49 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erect Penis of a Black Male 3.jpg /* File:Erect Penis of a Black Male 3.jpg */
  30. 2020-05-05 23:49 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erect penis and testicles of a Black Male 2.jpg /* File:Erect penis and testicles of a Black Male 2.jpg */
  31. 2020-05-05 23:48 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erect Penis and Testicles of a Black Male 1.jpg /* File:Erect Penis and Testicles of a Black Male 1.jpg */
  32. 2020-05-05 23:48 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flaccid Penis and Scrotum of a Black Male 2.jpg /* File:Flaccid Penis and Scrotum of a Black Male 2.jpg */
  33. 2020-05-05 23:47 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flaccid Penis and Scrotum of a Black Male.jpg /* File:Flaccid Penis and Scrotum of a Black Male.jpg */
  34. 2020-05-05 23:44 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg /* File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg */
  35. 2020-05-05 00:37 Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Balloon rexy /* Files uploaded by Balloon rexy (talk · contribs) */
  36. 2020-05-05 00:35 Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Min-jae-15061993 /* Files uploaded by Min-jae-15061993 (talk · contribs) */
  37. 2020-05-05 00:31 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vibrator Sex.jpg /* File:Vibrator Sex.jpg */
  38. 2020-04-30 00:06 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amateur porn and consent (redux).pdf /* File:Amateur porn and consent (redux).pdf */
  39. 2020-04-29 23:59 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Small penis humiliation.jpg /* File:Small penis humiliation.jpg */
  40. 2020-04-28 03:58 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Horse shoe waxed vagina.png /* File:Horse shoe waxed vagina.png */
  41. 2020-04-26 00:14 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude cycling females at Burning man 2009.jpg /* File:Nude cycling females at Burning man 2009.jpg */
  42. 2020-04-25 10:39 Commons:Deletion requests/File:A man masturbating and ejaculating.ogg delete
  43. 2020-04-25 00:19 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erect penis,vagina.jpg /* File:Erect penis,vagina.jpg */
  44. 2020-04-24 00:12 Commons:Deletion requests/File:A man masturbating and ejaculating.ogg /* File:A man masturbating and ejaculating.ogg */
  45. 2020-04-24 00:02 Commons:Deletion requests/CindyPedia uploads by Markfree123 (Stan old) /* CindyPedia uploads by Markfree123 (Stan old) */
  46. 2020-04-24 00:00 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vo1970.jpg /* File:Vo1970.jpg */
  47. 2020-04-23 01:58 Commons:Deletion requests/File:دختر برهنه.jpg /* File:دختر برهنه.jpg */
  48. 2020-04-23 01:56 Commons:Deletion requests/File:A man's perineum.jpg /* File:A man's perineum.jpg */
  49. 2020-04-23 01:56 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pene erecto.jpeg /* File:Pene erecto.jpeg */
  50. 2020-04-23 01:55 Commons:Deletion requests/File:A man's anus.jpg /* File:A man's anus.jpg */
  51. 2020-04-23 01:55 Commons:Deletion requests/File:A man's erect penis and scrotum.jpg /* File:A man's erect penis and scrotum.jpg */
  52. 2020-04-23 01:53 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boobjob 002.jpg /* File:Boobjob 002.jpg */
  53. 2020-04-23 01:53 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brunette facial cumshot non-nude 2016.jpg /* File:Brunette facial cumshot non-nude 2016.jpg */
  54. 2020-04-23 01:51 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flaccidstate.jpg /* File:Flaccidstate.jpg */
  55. 2020-04-23 01:51 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flaccid.jpg /* File:Flaccid.jpg */
  56. 2020-04-23 01:50 Commons:Deletion requests/File:1a. 25 year old man with 7 inch long erect uncircumcised penis after ejaculation by Matthew Newton.jpg /* File:1a. 25 year old man with 7 inch long erect uncircumcised penis after ejaculation by Matthew Newton.jpg */
  57. 2020-04-23 01:49 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude man jpg.jpg /* File:Nude man jpg.jpg */
  58. 2020-04-23 01:48 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Male chastity 01.jpg /* File:Male chastity 01.jpg */ --
  59. 2020-04-23 01:46 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shavedexhibitionist.jpg /* File:Shavedexhibitionist.jpg */
  60. 2020-04-23 01:42 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clover (40670426730).jpg /* File:Clover (40670426730).jpg */
  61. 2020-04-23 01:37 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caucasian male showing flaccid penis and scrotum.jpg /* File:Caucasian male showing flaccid penis and scrotum.jpg */
  62. 2020-04-03 23:59 Commons:Deletion requests/File:My now very curved penis. Sharp curving sue to large urethal penis sounding.jpg /* File:My now very curved penis. Sharp curving sue to large urethal penis sounding.jpg */
  63. 2020-04-03 23:58 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brian Stoddard gay erect curved penis.jpg /* File:Brian Stoddard gay erect curved penis.jpg */
  64. 2020-04-03 23:57 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brian Stoddard gay erect curved penis . Curved erection.jpg /* File:Brian Stoddard gay erect curved penis . Curved erection.jpg */
  65. 2020-04-03 23:33 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brian Stoddard hair pens before shaving off my penis hair and after completing shaving off all my penis hair.jpg /* File:Brian Stoddard hair pens before shaving off my penis hair and after completing shaving off all my penis hair.jpg */
  66. 2020-04-03 23:32 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brian Stoddard gay erect curved penis side view.jpg /* File:Brian Stoddard gay erect curved penis side view.jpg */
  67. 2020-03-31 00:09 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Penis,Uncercumcised,Erected.jpg /* File:Penis,Uncercumcised,Erected.jpg */
  68. 2020-03-31 00:08 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Penis,Uncercumcised,Non-Erected Top view.jpg /* File:Penis,Uncercumcised,Non-Erected Top view.jpg */
  69. 2020-03-31 00:08 Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Matthew Newton /* File:'1a Male with 7 inch uncircumcised penis by Matthew Newton.jpg */
  70. 2020-03-31 00:05 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Foreskin penis.jpg /* File:Foreskin penis.jpg */
  71. 2020-03-31 00:03 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude couple.jpg /* File:Nude couple.jpg */
  72. 2020-03-31 00:00 Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rupaja /* Files uploaded by Rupaja (talk · contribs) */
  73. 2020-03-30 23:56 Commons:Deletion requests/File:18 Jahre alter Mann-Erektion.jpg /* File:18 Jahre alter Mann-Erektion.jpg */
  74. 2020-03-30 23:54 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Korean human coitus.jpg /* File:Korean human coitus.jpg */
  75. 2020-03-11 23:43 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Female ejeacultion.webm /* File:Female ejeacultion.webm */
  76. 2020-03-10 08:40 Commons:Deletion requests/File:ChubbySex.jpg /* File:ChubbySex.jpg */
  77. 2020-03-10 08:38 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erected human penis with Peyronie's disease.jpg /* File:Erected human penis with Peyronie's disease.jpg */
  78. 2020-03-10 08:32 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg /* File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg */
  79. 2020-03-10 08:30 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Penis vagina.jpg /* File:Penis vagina.jpg */
  80. 2020-03-10 08:30 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Penis insertion in vagina.JPG /* File:Penis insertion in vagina.JPG */
  81. 2020-03-10 08:24 Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Alex-weki /* Files uploaded by Alex-weki (talk · contribs) */
  82. 2020-03-10 08:21 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Upskirt panty woman married.jpg /* File:Upskirt panty woman married.jpg */
  83. 2020-03-10 08:19 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Footjobman.jpg /* File:Footjobman.jpg */
  84. 2020-03-10 08:14 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eichel eines Mannes.jpg /* File:Eichel eines Mannes.jpg */

--Fæ (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Fæ: I've also voted against hundreds of copyright violations since 2018, demonstrating that I'm not simply targeting one kind of image. Your "statistics" seem to ignore anything which doesn't support your argument against me. BTW: please strike the expression "anti-pron crusade" from your comments. I find it to be inaccurate, emotive, inflammatory, prejudicial and franking quite insulting. AshFriday (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The report above is entirely accurate and includes all usage of the vote template in deletion requests over the past 3 months by the account AshFriday (talk · contribs · logs · block log). There is no missing "hundreds" of other votes in this report. --Fæ (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ Why aren't you offering stats from the past two years? Why are the last three or four months so important? Is it because I accurately reported how you voted to keep an image that was later deleted as potential underaged porn - back in Janurary? This is starting to look suspiciously like an act of revenge, Fae. AshFriday (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Do not use allegations about child abuse to derail this proposal or to game the system. This noticeboard nor any discussion page on Commons should not be used to discuss child abuse or to publish criminal allegations about child abuse against others. Evidence of suspected child abuse should be sent to WMF legal or the Oversight team, as advised several times in the past.
This attempt to disrupt discussion by repeating past false child abuse allegations, is blatant battleground behaviour. --Fæ (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ I made no allegations, I simply asked you a question, which you are apparently refusing to answer. If you are going to make unwarranted accusations against me, I have the right to question your motives for doing so. Is this proposal an act of revenge, Fae? Yes or no? AshFriday (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
BTW: And your sustained attacks on me are not battleground behavior, Fæ? I've ignored it over the past few months, but if you're going to attack me on a public forum, I'm certainly going to reply. AshFriday (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
AshFriday please keep your suspicions of revenge under your hat per AGF. — Racconish 💬 08:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
No contributor has "the right" to gaslight other contributors. The behaviours demonstrated in responses to this proposal and the very basic factual report of a template search above, is sufficient evidence of persistant disruptive battleground behaviour from a single purpose account. --Fæ (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Racconish Are you OK with Fae making overt personal attacks such as calling calling me an "anti-pron warrior", accusing me of having a single purpose account, claiming that I engage in battleground behavior and worst of all, suggesting that "I promote bigotry" and "harassment"? All things being equal, I would appreciate it is you asked Fae to strike his comments.AshFriday (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, please. Anyone can look at your edits and see you are here for pretty much one purpose, and that's to fight pron. You've uploaded zero files, you've modified 2 in two years, and your contributions are dominated by anti-pron DRs. Let's be honest here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
So, Prosfilaes, you're willing to completely ignore every copyright violation I've raised, every file I've fought to keep, and every file which was successfully removed with the approval of the community. Even so, I've broken no rules by using either the {{vk}} or {{vd}} templates in someone else's nomination. I can't even be accused of censorship, as deletions are decided by consensus and my vote counts for very little. BTW: to the best of my knowledge, the uploading of files is not mandatory in order to edit commons; if such a policy exist, please post a link below. AshFriday (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
We can all see your DRs in the last three months above. You've fought to keep exactly one file in that time. If you've raised copyright violations by DR, they've been of nudity related files. Files that have been deleted would generally have been deleted anyway; your less-than-detailed, less-than-specific analysis isn't very helpful. Most Commons users upload files; a Commons user that doesn't upload any files despite a thousand edits is probably a single-purpose account of some type.
I mean, whatever. I don't find what you do valuable, but it's not particularly destructive either. Bringing you to AN/U seems excessive. But you're denying basic facts that are obvious to all of us, as if we can't see them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Reminder: This proposal is for AshFriday to be "barred from voting in DRs relating to nudity or sex" because "Their contributions are disruptive and meaningless".
AshFriday may instead make a positive contribution to other deletion requests, such as copyright violations that are unconnected to nudity or sex which are part of a self declared never-ending battle against smut ([2]). --Fæ (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: Maybe it would be good to take a break from this discussion. We get your point(s) Gbawden (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Funny how very many discussions have a comment just like this one in it. Fae seems to try and bludgeon every discussion they are in with repeated posts that say essentially the same thing. Maybe we're examining the wrong users' behavior? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Please do raise a thread asking for administrator action. If what you say it true then a block should be in order. Evidence, rather than just bad faith rhetoric, is what counts. My edit count here is very high, so you have plenty of material to select from if my behavour is as terrible as you say for this project's mission. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Your edit count here is high? Really? I didn't know that, since you don't go out of your way to bring it up and use it to bludgeon people who's edit count is not as high as yours in like, every single discussion, so thanks for that very new information. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox and Fæ: I think that this and the way this conversation is going is a good sign that both of you should take a break from this discussion. I understand that emotions are clearly running high here, but if a line hasn't already been crossed, it soon will. Take a breather--it'll be good for y'all. Ìch heiss Nat. 19:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Closure

I am going to close out this thread since there have been no new votes in three days, and the rest has just devolved into an unrelated argument.

Not Implemented - The voting above shows no consensus for a topic ban. I have gone through and reviewed all the open DRs and closed most of those which had been open a week. Some were deleted, some were kept. AshFriday, I would encourage you to broaden your horizons on what and how you vote in DRs - the fact that you only contribute to nudity DRs, and only ever in a negative manner, is not good. Especially when your comments are almost entirely the dismissive "worthless" or "poor quality", even when the subject is well-lit and something we do not have many examples of. It will inevitably bring about topics like this, where you are seen as a single purpose account. Do something else, for your own sanity. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


User:Dr.Editorias again

Dr.Editorias (talk · contribs) was warned, reported, and blocked for a month in early April 2020 for repeatedly uploading clearly copyrighted photos and screen grabs, often with a flag or other image photoshopped into the background. Shortly after the expiry of the block, the user resumed this practice, uploading several images and adding them to articles on English Wikipedia:

--Canley (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him for 3 months. Thank you for nominating copyvios for deletion! Taivo (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Ntsctalk

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

Serial copyvios. Perhaps this user has a poor understanding of copyright. Please give a explanation and warning to this user about copyright from the administrator. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Due to large number of copyvios (over 100 deleted files during last week!) I blocked the user without warning for a month. Now I'm going to delete some other copyvios not included among hundred previously deleted files. Taivo (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your work, Taivo and Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Haka-Taka

Haka-Taka (talk · contribs) is just another Category:Sockpuppets of Yahadzija, re-uploading previously delete photos. --Smooth O (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

User:E4024

E4024 (talk · contribs) continues abusing CFD nominations as a forum to complain about users and ...countries? people?.

[...A year of self-imposed exile (2019-2020)...]

I propose a ban for this user on CfD. Strakhov (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been going on for a few years now. I remember when he simply wanted to teach me a lesson on online privacy and vanity(?) by commenting on my young age and images taken of me on Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Jonatan Svensson Glad while he "was not suggesting any deletion". --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Running a separate report on all CfD contributions this year, agree that language used in a minority of these discussions can be confrontational, especially with regard to race and gender and that they state they have the equivalent of a CfD enemies list is itself a problem against the "hostile environment" component of COM:BP. Part of the issues created here may be down to using a colloquial form of English and so inadvertently causing more offense than intended, especially when mentioning minority groups. No personal stake in this, as CfDs rarely attract my opinions and never (I think) ever had a disagreement with E4024.

Report of problematic CfD contributions in the last two weeks
  1. 2020-05-31 05:24 Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Projector /* Category:Projector */ d
  2. 2020-05-30 23:16 Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Violence between women /* Category:Violence between women */ +
  3. 2020-05-30 04:44 Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Nude or partially nude females gardening /* Category:Nude or partially nude females gardening */ more
  4. 2020-05-30 03:29 Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Violence between women /* Category:Violence between women */ +
  5. 2020-05-18 13:17 Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/11/Category:Actors from Germany /* Category:Actors from Germany */ ?!

--Fæ (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: I didn't see a statement of an "enemies list" but instead "list of people to avoid interacting with". To me those are different - an enemies list is of people you want to confront, the other is a list of people you don't want to have to talk to at all. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Fair point, thanks for the correction.
To make the relatively low proportion of perceived problematic CfD contributions clearer, the original unfiltered report of all CfD edits in 2020 for E4024 is at User:Faebot/SandboxE. --Fæ (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I normally try to keep away from discussions about myself because I do not find it politically correct, but this time I will make an exception. The reason is I recently came back from "self-imposed exile" and I believe I do have a lot of positive contributions to Commons and it would be a loss for the platform (although a drop in the ocean).
    1. To Jonatan Svensson Glad: Re-reading the CfD you refer to, I see the below words of mine:
      "I have my doubts in keeping this cat just as it is. If it were me, I would have proposed the deletion of my own images (even if I were 20) and as I'm a bit older, with all due respect to our colleague I would like to tell him that when he is my age and he remembers he had so many personal pictures in Commons at some point of time, he will smile and say "E4024 was right". This I say with some life experience. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance and in public. Sorry Jonatan. A cordial hug."
      "If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance and in public. Sorry Jonatan. A cordial hug." Is this not enough? Then block me if it will make you feel better. I can only repeat the above words, nothing else comes to my mind.
    2. To the latest user who contributed above: I did not make any odd (or not) CfD arguments at the said DR. The file will only be deleted if the closing admin deems that is the correct decision. Do not feel bad about me because I opened a DR. I wish you best.
    3. To the admin who opened this thread: Firstly, I made a call to you on your adminship not because of two wrong reverts because I have other observations in time that I will keep to myself. If I thought your adminship were harmful to the project I would try to do something about it. I do not think so. BTW as you like researches you may find out that neither here nor at any other place I opened a complaint about any user. (And normally I do not participate in discussions about me as I already said above.) Frankly I find it unlucky that this comes shortly after I told you to resign. Whatever. Ah, during my presence here I may probably have opened also useful CfDs. You could make a list of them also and so we can see the picture better. Regrettably most cats about which I opened discussions were deleted or merged somewhere, but still there must be a number of "good" CfDs I opened. Never mind. If I see there are many people like you who do not want me here I will go. Take care.
    (Sorry Fae, I had already written my text. I will read you after sending this.)
    --E4024 (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

77.252.60.86

Kriestovo Nysian (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you offer diffs and translations where necessary? I see many apparently non-problematic edits, and I see them in dispute with you, but nothing clearly jumps out, especially not as clear vandalism.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hollycelebs.i

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

Return of long term abusers Alybaig004 (talk · contribs) and Alybaig16 (talk · contribs) for OOS (and probably hoax) content. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet. Now I'm going to delete his self-promotion. Taivo (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

EvilEmperor22

A1Cafel - Proposing ban on the user filing deletion requests

A1Cafel (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has shown a consistent pattern of carelessness in both deletion requests and speedy deletion tagging:

  • In September 2019 they were brought to this forum over concerns that there was a pattern of the user misusing CSD F8 (uploading a duplicate then nominating the original for deletion) though the thread closed without any resolution. Then in April of this year, the issue resurfaced and this time @King of Hearts: blocked the user from using flickr2commons via an abuse filter.
  • In January they nominated for deletion a large number of files because their metadata contained Facebook markers (example). They assumed that therefore the files were false claims of own work, despite there being no other evidence of this. @Magog the Ogre and Bookscale: attempted to explain why their nominations were incorrect but they refused to back down and made several arguments that seemed to misunderstand COM:PCP and the outcomes of prior deletion discussions.
  • At the beginning of May they mass nominated files for deletion because a non-OTRS user added an OTRS tag to the file. They did not ask an OTRS agent to check if the ticket was valid, they just assumed that it wasn't and made several dozen bad nominations.
  • Mid-May, they nominated a large number of files for speedy deletion per CSD F10, of which a significant amount clearly did not qualify for the tag. @Tuvalkin, Fæ, Pandakekok9, and Jarekt: all left messages on their talk page about this behavior, and the user agreed to temporarily stop tagging files for CSD F10.
  • A scan of the user's talk page and archives indicates that there are a number of other one-off issues with deletion nominations as well, and when asked for clarification, A1Cafel's answers were often unclear or incorrect.

Everyone makes mistakes, but the large volume of mistakes - many of a careless nature - over several different forums and over a long period of time, indicate to me that this user is too overzealous and not careful enough, and does not have a strong understanding of relevant policy. The outcome of such a high volume of bad deletion nominations is confused or alienated uploaders and a large amount of time spent by other volunteers cleaning up after the bad nominations.

I am therefore suggesting a ban on A1Cafel nominating files for deletion, under any mechanism (DR, CSD, etc.). The ban against filing deletion requests would be indefinite, but could be lifted through another discussion in this forum. The ban would not prevent the user from participating in discussions started by others (and indeed this would be the best way for them to demonstrate that they've learned applicable policies). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Seven days ago A1Cafel's reply to concerns was to agree to stop using F10 'for a while'.
Unless there is evidence they have failed to do that, I do not understand why a good faith agreement would be inadequate or why a sysop request is necessary compared to discussing with A1Cafel.
There is no need to escalate if local discussion is having a positive effect. --Fæ (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
That agreement covers F10, while this discussion if about all deletion nominations. --Jarekt (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I run into this user when they began deleting copyright tags from the files without any explanation, as can be seen here. That action seemed particularly malicious, as it will likely cause the file to show up in the database queries aimed at detecting files with no license tags. A likely scenario is that someone-else will slap it with "no license" tag causing speedy deletion. What was especially strange was that this file already had Deletion Request page, so the deletion of the license seemed to be attempt to short circuit the ongoing discussion. My comments on the user page, and many other similar comments, were never answered. I have no confidence that this user knows what they are doing, as far as deletions and policies go. --Jarekt (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 Comment The reason has been explained on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Katherine young 5182935.jpg, so I don't think it is necessary to repeat once more. This is about the Flickr PDM 1.0 licensing problem per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Me and Mdaniels5757 are working on this. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment If there's proof that A1Cafel is making wrong deletion nominations again after he was warned about CSD F10, then I would support the ban. Otherwise I don't think a ban on making deletion nominations is necessary and helpful right now. pandakekok9 08:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I noticed a discussion on User_talk:A1Cafel#Missing_authors_and_sources about the source of 8 files. The files was tagged with NSD a few hours ago. It is a crop of intro text of old German tv-series. Later it changed to a discussion about permission.
Personally I would not tag the files with a NSD or a NPD as the logos are text and you could argue that the image in the background is de minimis. Both NSD and NPD is in my opinion also a deletion tag.
Perhaps instead of a ban A1Cafel could get a mentor to discuss DR's etc with? --MGA73 (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757 removing license tags

Mdaniels likes to remove tags and then slap a {{Nld}}, saying the image is missing the license. For example on File:PedroVC.jpg. I don't know why Mdaniels but IMO this action is destructive. Administrative action may be required. --116.49.139.94 03:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Mdaniels removes incorrect licenses from files, which are licensed in Flickr as public domain mark. COM:L says for allowed licenses in Commons: "The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable". Public domain mark is not allowed in Commons, because it is revocable, please see Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images for the discussion. Taivo (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I am of the opinion it would have been more appropriate to slap a {{No permission since}} on this particular photo rather than removing the licence tag and then slapping a {{No license since}}. The username of the uploader and the name of the account on Flickr are similar enough that there is enough of a possibility that the uploader and the Flickr account holder are one and the same. As such, if the the Flickr account holder and the uploader on Commons are the same person, they would have the right to relicense the photo, therefore, upload the photo under a different licence than the PDM tag they had on Flickr. Evidently, as it was uploaded previously elsewhere, this may need to confirmed using OTRS or the Flickr account holder will need to relicense on Flickr. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 19:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it would be more helpful. Perhaps also a small notice explaining why we do not accept the "license" on Flickr. But I also agree that there is no need to take actions against Mdaniels. --MGA73 (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

BocaJuniors00

BocaJuniors00 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues problematic uploads despite warnings. What is not copyvio is by chance (simple logos). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Alexandremidias

Could some experienced user check it out this user (Alexandremidias (talk · contribs)) uploads? Some time ago I found a copyvio image uploaded by this user. Now, checking his contributions I'm quite sure that most of the images he claims to be "own work" are, actually not "own work". For example, these two images (File:Antônio Martinz de Aguiar e Silva.jpg and File:Caucaia-Casa-de-Câmara-e-Cadeia-Imagem-Acervo-Digital-do-Iphan.jpg) are too old for being own work (one of them seems to belong to IPHAN). These images (File:Serra da Rajada em Tucunduba.jpg and File:Monumento Natural da Serra da Rajada.jpg) were made by a photographer named "Thiago Barros", as shown on the pictures' metadata. Some photos seem to be taken from other sites. It looks likes this user just takes pictures from internet and uploads it here. Could someone give it a look? Regards.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 07:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have marked the obvious copyright violations. I think all uploads should be deleted and a block is sadly required, since they have repeatedly removed warnings from their talk page ([3] (includes old warning from 2014/2015 and one from March 2020), [4]). Bidgee (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Rox1682

Keeps uploading the same copyrighted images over and over (for the 4th time at this point). Gikü (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ User given a final warning. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 02:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Bruno Bertoldo Jackson and User:Christian Chávez Fan

Bruno Bertoldo Jackson (talk · contribs) upload several copyvio images here on Commons. Now, on PT.WP we found out that they have a sock, Christian Chávez Fan (talk · contribs), who are also uploading copyvio images here on Commons. Should I open a formal request on Commons:Requests for checkuser or could they be blocked per DUCK?--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 22:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you should create formal request for checkuser. I warned Bruno Bertoldo Jackson and will delete his last remaining uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I opened a case.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 07:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Iccsbpo

This account seems to be used solely for advertising. Apparently a problem since late-2018. Chenzw  Talk  06:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user and will delete the spam. Taivo (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Cherkash and Template:De facto boundaries

User:Cherkash has changed the formulation of the template and, without waiting for any agreement on the change, started changing the translations as well. I don't think this is an accidental change in a good will, since the user's history shows constant dispute with the UN's point of view on Russian territory claims - and this edit fits in the series. --GeXeS (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like User:GeXeS is reading much more into my simple edit than is reasonable – and advancing a conspiracy theory about motivation where none is needed. They are also alluding for "waiting for an agreement" whereas the template's simple change hasn't even been contested once.
The question actually is purely technical: once the main translated page or template has been changed (which, by the way, hasn't been contested via any normal means so far: e.g. via the Talk pages), is it reasonable to manually synchronize translations (i.e. ".../i18n/lang" subpages) while the main changes are waiting in queue for a translation admin's approval (which is a purely technical step as I understood from reading the manual)? Or will this mess something up in the translation interface later and such manual editing of the ".../i18n/lang" subpages is discouraged?
So perhaps this discussion should have been started by User:GeXeS in a technical forum, as its main point is syncing/unsyncing translations. If, on the contrary, the main objection is to the main language's (English) changes to the template, this should have been raised first on the main template's Talk page (".../i18n" or just "...") before being brought up here. Cherkash (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Roi Escuer

Escape block (Namest 2003 (talk · contribs)) same files related to ːes:Sara Fernández and ːesːSara Maria Fernández. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Both are indefinitely blocked (checkuserblock) and their contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Harshit00111 - persistent copyright violations

Harshit00111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Harshit00111 has been persistently uploading images that he has obviously found on the internet as his own work and then adding them to articles on en.Wikipedia. Several were deleted a few days ago after which he re-uploaded them. I have raised these issues on his talk page,[5] and that was followed up by a warning from EugeneZelenko.[6] I've also raised the same issues at his en.Wikipedia talk page, to no avail. I thought that he had gotten the message when I didn't notice problems for a few days but he has now uploaded File:Sharmilee Raj.jpg and File:Sikandar vs Porus.jpg, both of which are copyvios. I think a "gentle reminder" by an admin is warranted at this point. The editor is admittedly new but but there are multiple competency issues, especially at en.Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Blocked thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Pcgmrich is a possible sockpuppet of Pcgmsrich (blocked for sockpupettry)

Pcgmrich is a possible sockpuppet of Pcgmsrich (blocked for sockpupettry) and has edited some of the same files, removing dates, cropping images and then reverting and other same type of patterns. Tm (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

And another sock in the form of the IP 99.203.128.232, blocked for 3 days, but with the same pattern of edits. Tm (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 Comment User:Jdx has blocked this user for cross-wiki vandalism. Thank you for the quick response. Tm (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
To be precise, I have blocked them just for vandalismm, not cross-wiki vandalism. And yesterday I softblocked the whole 99.203.0.0/16 range. Earlier 2605:A000:F68D:8600::/64, 76.189.163.233 and Pcgmsrich. --jdx Re: 17:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done --jdx Re: 17:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Carlllllou

This is, most likely, a SOCK trying to recreate a deleted category and to upload promotional deleted pictures (here and here). He's a long-term abuser from PT.WP and tries to use WP and COM to promote a non notable artist named "Honicli". Could someone help?--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 05:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Pi.1415926535 Thank you very much.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 06:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Alexdfigo

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

OOS personal images only, doesn't understand warning messages. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done 1989 (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

M.faroy

Persistent uploading of images that are OOS, has been warned a few times already. Chenzw  Talk  06:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Alybaig004

User has returned to uploading copyvios shortly after the expiry of their last block. Chenzw  Talk  08:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

In fact they are not copyviosː they are fake album covers or fake release announcementsː all his uploads (and his socks') are hoax. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

尾井優太

The user keeps uploading out-of-scope images such as File:波場の電磁誘導.jpg and File:福知山市の方々.jpg, which are similar to the ones previously deleted per community consensus (Commons:Deletion requests/File:福知山人.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:福知山の方。.jpg). Could someone delete the images and warn the user? Thanks. 153.229.248.103 05:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Edgarlgavega

Escape block by Edgar lIzárraga Vega (talk · contribs)ː images of es:Culiacán and its inhabitants (Markitos Toys). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him indefinitely and will delete all his uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

User:AnitaDora3

The user AnitaDora3 (talk · contribs) keep uploading images and pictures taken from the internet as "own work". They were asked to stop this behavior, but they keep ignoring it. All their uploads were deleted or are up from deletion for COPYVIO.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 07:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Account blocked for 3 days and issued a warning. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Spam

Spam bots

  1. Ayush2331 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  2. Vidyutpaul (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Self promotion spam

  1. Patrika_002 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  2. Odyens (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  3. TintoRec (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  4. Bondhu2u (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  5. Freshreporters (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  6. Rkmanagement (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Spamming \ self promotion \ company accounts.--BevinKacon (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Largely done and thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

User:PastorPeitl copyvio uploader

User uploaded File:FlughafenMalevo.png which is available via Google search on other websites in higher resolution, after final warning.--BevinKacon (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks Gbawden (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Zamstag2020

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. Érico (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Kalbbes

I would like to have the behaviour of this user reviewed, especially the "threating of violence" accusation.

On their talk page, Kalbbes unjustly accuses me of threating of violence [7]. As for me, it is really slanderous because in general I am amongst the last ones who would ever apply any violence, and this is also a criminal act, because in my country (and nearly all countries where active Commoners come from) violence is clearly a prerogative of the state. So for me, especially as a real-name user, it is heavy slander and subject to a long block. Thanks. --A.Savin 00:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

They're very likely referring to your threats to being blocked. You weren't planning to perform the blocking yourself, right? From what I've seen, it's nothing more than a dispute. In situations like this, it'd be great if you assumed good faith and properly communicate with the user instead of thinking they're malicious while leaving template messages stating they would be blocked. 1989 (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Once again: they accused me of threating of violence, which is slanderous. Block = violence? Wow, just wow. --A.Savin 17:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
What you described does not warrant an immediate block and I already told you why. 1989 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks like a mistranslation to me, I don't think it was meant as physical violence. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
What is exactly, in your opinion, a mistranslation here? Is it that I threatened violence but actually didn't mean that as violence, or that Kalbbes accused me of threatening violence while they meant something different? --A.Savin 20:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think they intended to accuse you of threatening physical violence. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mattbuck: I don't think it's a mistranslation. Kalbbes claims they have a professional level of reading and speaking English on their userpage. pandakekok9 08:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Clearly Kalbbes did not mean physical violence. He meant doing him harm of another sort.
You (A.Savin) accused him of vandalism, which is at least as much of a stretch as his accusation of violence. Vandalism is doing willful damage. Clearly he is editing with positive intentions, even if perhaps not always competently and possibly even at times against consensus (although in a dispute between two people with no third party involved, there is no clear consensus).
I'm not saying Kalbbes did nothing wrong. I am saying that there is mainly a content dispute between two editors here, and it is not a situation for one of those editors to put on his admin hat and threaten blocks.
Yes, at some point, if it is clear that he is editing against consensus, he could be blocked for that, but I'd expect it to be handled exactly the same way as if the person he is in conflict with were not an admin. - Jmabel ! talk 02:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I actually thought, relevant (for community health) is what you write/say and not what you think for yourself? Do you find it okay that my name is, thanks to Kalbbes, now connected with a violence accusation? At least an administrative removal of this unjust accusation were actually to expect?
By the way, I don't remember to ever have called their edits vandalism, but that's right, I actually used this semi-automated warning message. --A.Savin 03:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Remember now? 1989 (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

A.Savin

Question: When the community will decide to desysop A.Savin? Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I thank you A.Savin to have given up wasting time to the community, you opinion of yourself talk by itself and is impressive. Do you suggest that if one think you are not worthy to be administrator because of your warlike behavior this is harassement? lol. Every month or every two months or three months you are involved in disputes where you threaten people to be blocked, and at each time for nothing worth of a block. I repeat the question: when the community will decide to desysop A.Savin? Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 Info note that I am not responsible for the creation of this subsection. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Pinging Fæ per previous significant input regarding this administrator for comment. Do you think one should be started? 1989 (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Colin, Ymblanter, and Sealle: Colleagues, do you really find this kind of hounding civil? What exactly did I do wrong in this case? All I actually did, is having placed several warnings on Kalbbes' talk page, after numerous of their edits were problematic to say the least. They raised questions wrt me at Help Desk (Commons:Help_desk#Please_give_me_some_advice, Commons:Help_desk#Deleting_my_categories, Commons:Help_desk#Deleting_my_categories), I have addressed all the question to the best of my knowledge and conciousness, they did not give any further comments so far. And no, I didn't thread violence (for god's sake). I'm really sick of this campaign, yesterday I really felt broken... Is this behaviour by Ferrer and others appreciated here on Commons, or what? --A.Savin 19:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You gave false warnings about vandalism to someone who didn't commit vandalism. If you don't see nothing wrong with that, that's a serious concern. 1989 (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The warnings may have been "too semi-automated", but they were not false: If a user removes a perfectly justified category from a file, you revert it, and they repeat the removal again, without seeking discussion, without any explanation, how would you react otherwise? Do nothing? Block immediately? If warnings are not welcome, why then do we have this gadget amongst user preferences? --A.Savin 19:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
If it were me, I would of told them what they did wrong and ask to discuss if they disagreed in the edit summary. If done a second time, I would of asked them to stop before I reported them. There are times when you cannot act as a sysop, especially in a dispute. 1989 (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The essence is the same --- I discussed with them numerous times on their talkpage, my talkpage, Help Desk. I explained what exactly was wrong. In what percentage of situations am I actually acting appropriately as sysop and in what not? I doubt that in situations where I act appropriately I would ever get a positive feedback from you. --A.Savin 19:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not fully aware of your history, so I can't answer that. As for the last sentence, that's nonsense. If I feel the need to defend you, I will. 1989 (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually this is exactly what I have to assume. In normal situations (i.e. when I do my job appropriately; which applies in far more than 90% of the cases) you don't feel the need to spend positive feedback, but in situations where others accuse me of doing my job inappropriately, you immediately join them in attacking my contributions. --A.Savin 20:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
If you couldn't do the same for me, then how do you expect me to do so in return? Despite your opinions of me, I've never let it blind my judgement. I've been completely neutral with you, like I do with everyone else. Once again, If I feel the need to defend you, I will. Please, let's not make this personal. 1989 (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
What could illustrate the fact, that your comments here are personally motivated, better than "If you couldn't do the same for me, then how do you expect me to do so in return"? And yeah, there were some problems, but note for example that I a) did not fall as deep to comment something like "Love you too 1889" (yes, it's not a typo, because in this comment my name was written wrong too and this also hardly was a typo), and --- surprise! --- supported a desysop of MtO, because I find both their block of you and the lack of discussion problematic. So who is actually getting personal here? --A.Savin 20:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Everyone can clearly see I was responding your personal comments, so your first sentence is utter nonsense. If you saw nothing wrong with how you voted to make me react that way, then something is seriously wrong. You, the one and only, is making this personal. 1989 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
We all learn something new and from past mistakes over time, some of my old comments meanwhile I find even embarassing and would not repeat it this way anymore. It's worrisome, especially for a sysop colleague, that you don't even distance yourself from this comment, and moreover, tend to diminish my comments here as "(utter) nonsense". Maybe en:WP:CIVIL is what you urgently should gain knowledge of. --A.Savin 21:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Uh-huh. 1989 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry but at this point I have zero trust in this community. I am very critical of WMF, but I am afraid the best that could happen is WMF taking the project directly over.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: If that's the case, why are you still an administrator? 1989 (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Calling overcategorization "vandalism" is not appropriate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
KoH, note that there is a small tiny bit difference between "overcat" and "the same overcat again and again despite requests not to do this"... --A.Savin 19:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
This is a content dispute. If it were really vandalism, it wouldn't be possible to hold a 10+ message long back-and-forth conversation on his talk page about it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Do I understand then correctly, that any revert on a self-taken picture is for the author a content dispute? Or otherwise: what would you suggest, if someone comes with Cat-a-lot or VFC and removes all pictures from, just as example, Category:2 cats, without adding or suggesting something instead (e.g. a more specified same-tree category)? It's nothing different here, only with an other category and much less pictures (so far). --A.Savin 22:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Repeatedly refusing to follow categorization policy is of course a blockable offense (though I don't think Kalbbes is anywhere close to deserving a block). However, you should not block or threaten to block users you are involved in a dispute with, especially when it concerns your own files; it is best to report the behavior on a noticeboard like this, and have a neutral admin look at the situation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I've reported. This resulted in the above "discussion", where my favourite comments by fellow sysops are "Question: When the community will decide to desysop A.Savin?" and "Uh-huh". --A.Savin 00:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Wow, and I'm the one that should read en:WP:CIVIL... 1989 (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm just citing. --A.Savin 01:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
What I'm saying is you should have filed a report instead of, not in addition to, blocking or threatening to block. Just to be clear, I don't agree with a desysop, but at the same time I think you could have handled the situation better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Savin: as 1989 wrote already, in such situations (not applicable for copyvio-uploads) we should at 1st instance notify the user about the problem and eventually explain or offer to discuss, at 2nd instance again notify and warn not to do/repeat the infringing action and at 3rd instance report (eventually propose a block) in order to allow other colleagues to voice their opinion. If it doesn't proceed as we think it should be, sometimes it's better to let go. Finally, none of us is responsible that everything is correct on Commons, even if we try our utmost..
@all: nevertheless, even if our colleague's behaviour might have been sub-optimal, I see no justification for a de-sysop. --Túrelio (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking at this, and the user talk page linked, I see both editors used language that was inappropriate ("vandalism", "violence"), which upset the other and made further communication to resolve things harder. A.Savin, when you exaggerate, you increase the feeling in the other that they are being unjustly criticized. It would be useful for you to acknowledge that using that word was a mistake, we all make mistakes, and appreciate it made the situation worse. I also agree with others, that when one finds oneself in a "two people arguing with each other and getting nowhere" situation, it would be useful to (a) get input from others and (b) to take a break if wound up about it: there is no rush.
I don't think admins with long-running dislike of each other, should do a drive-by "Why is this guy still an admin" comments, or escalate things further. While is it possible to read "such threats of violence towards me" as purely figurative language, and I think it likely to be meant that way, it still isn't acceptable on Commons and all editors should be allowed to complain about.
User:Kalbbes, describing an administrative action as "violence" is never acceptable. Using language like that, which has legal and criminal meaning, against editors is not permitted. Many editors use their real names but even otherwise, such language on the internet can have real-world consequences. Do not do that again: I would support a block if repeated. I ask Kalbbes to strike that accusation and think other admins should join with me in insisting upon that an appropriate response. -- Colin (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Colin here. Templating experienced users with vandalism-notices for categorizations which were apparently done in good faith is not helpful. It would be preferable to refer to the edit in question and to tell what is wrong with it. Even if this happens again, it is better to have some patience and try to resolve this than to issue “last warnings”. If there remains a serious disregard for COM:OVERCAT or in case of edit-warring it is best to escalate this to COM:AN/U. Next, Kalbbes shouldn't have used the term violence. This is not acceptable, it would be best to strike this comment. And finally, we do not need another desysop discussion. Instead, we should attempt to improve our communication and to turn Commons into a more friendly space. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    @AFBorchert: How is falsely accusing someone of vandalism done in good faith? 1989 (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    @1989: I never claimed this. Please read: “categorizations which were apparently done in good faith”. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    I see. My apologies. 1989 (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Colin and AFBorchert and many thanks to both of you for taking time, and wise analysis. (Still a pity that it comes only now, though.) --A.Savin 13:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe this should be closed now. And after a dispute with user:Charlesjsharp, if I remember well, a few months ago, and now this one, and all the (numerous) disputes that preceded these, maybe can we hope one entire year without a dispute that include a threat of block, and why not, let's be crazy, an entire year without conflict that include Alexander at all. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Christian Ferrer, your airing old grievances is a personal attack. There is a difference between presenting actionable evidence, with diffs, finding community agreement that there is an urgent problem in need of admin action, and just regularly moaning about someone in a general way whenever their name appears on this page. Kalbbes has not struck their remark and I see they are editing this evening. -- Colin (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
You don't help A.Savin let him trust that it is illegitimate to think that his behavior is not worth of the administrator status. The exact same kind of conflict+threat against another experimented editor was 6 months ago, [8]. And yes, yes I think we can ask "will he spare us that for at least a year?", and yes his beahavior is not worth of the administrator status. And yes it is my duty of administrator to say that to him for one reason, I consider as my duty of administrator to try to provide a safe environement to the "simple users" and to defend them against other unfair administrators if necessary. There is no old grievances, there is only A.Savin who wrongly (again) threaten to block another user with whom he has a strong discussion. If he do it again, then I will be here again to say it again, it is up to him to avoid that. That's not very complicated, however it seems that yes this is complicated for him, thus yes again (and again) that behavior is not worth of the administrator status, specially for an experienced one. Instead of following A.Savin with his stories of " harassement" (luckily I 'm administrator otherwise he would have likely blocked me since a long time... that's sure at 100%), or with his stories of "old grievances", you should convince him to do not put himself alone in similar situations (conflicts) in which he puts himself very (too) easily. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
If you have some evidence of a long-term problem then open a case, provide a long sequence of diffs, explain why this is unacceptable, what should be done, etc, etc. Then others can specifically look at that issue, balance it against the weight of non-problematic activity, and deal with that issue. What you are doing here is piling on top of a specific issue involving another user, with your vague moans about an admin you don't like. The specific issue, use of language that is not acceptable, is being dealt with and you are not helping. Consider if it was you who came here because someone had accused you of violence? Would you want editors and admins to examine that neutrally, or would you like for all the people who don't like you very much to come out and pick faults in what you said and how you said it, and for them to go on and on about it after others have told them to stop. Stop. -- Colin (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
That's not me who will do something here, and not me who will make an honorable almond here, nice attempt to turn things around. If he do it again, I will say again, "that behavior is not worth of the administrator status". That's all. That's what I think and nothing will prevent me to say it. You can write ten messages of that kind, I will answer the same thing ten times... that's up to him not to be in this kind of situation, and that is the role of the administrators to "at least" try not to fall in this kind of complex situation. If it was me... no it is not me, but if it was me, I will make honorable almond (another condition necessary to the role of administrator, and another fully flouted, as we each time we need a long and long discussion to have A.Savin making a few step backs). Furthermore in the extend that this discussion have really started when I intervened, the facst don't make me think I'm wrong, thus I'm fully in my role here and should be thanked. If he wrongly and unfairly threat again other users for blocks, as he did several times (no need to search in the archives, this case and Charles' case talks by themselves), then I will say again "at when a desysop?" And you, will you make repeat this answer several times? Stop yourself. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
"and nothing will prevent me to say it?" Really? Christian, your constant moaning is just adding evidence for earning yourself a one-way interaction ban. Do you know the phrase "put up or shut up"? It really isn't about you thinking you are right and therefore justified to act like you do: lots of people think they are right and edit war or wheel war or whatever. How would you like it if every time you were on this forum, someone popped up to say "Why the heck is this ----er still an admin?", and when challenged to stop doing that replied "But he is a ----er!" If you aren't going to do something about it, it just just personal attacks. We get that you don't think A.Savin should be an admin. We get that you want to say this again and again. No need to say more. -- Colin (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the second time in less than 6 month that he do the same thing (that was the two first times? really??), without any true attempt of acknowledgement. Question: when the community will decide to desysop A.Savin? I'm alone to think that, fine, I can leave with that. But at least maybe can we hope one entire year without a dispute that include a threat of block from A.Savin within a conflict in which he is widely involved...
Should I repeat again? do you think having a chat with me mitigates A.Savin behavior?
Ok, if apparently it's necessary to repeat again: "can we hope one entire year without a dispute that include a threat of block from A.Savin within a conflict in which he is widely involved"?
Is that an extraordinary and exaggerated question? no, I think it is not, this is a legitimate and relevant question. Me I don't trust him, and I think he will do that again, thus my first comment "when the community will decide to desysop A.Savin?". I repeat again? or that's enough? Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
They decide to do it, when they come to conclusion that my contribution is a net-damage for the poject. --A.Savin 17:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm fine with that. All what I said is my point of view, it's my full right to say it. Complain about a said "persucution", and/or call colleagues of you to do so, will not bring anything good for you, and is not even a beginning of difficulty for me, that is just a bit of time lost for several of us. When I say (with my words) "this specific fact is not up to the status of administrator", being on the defensive just shows your inability to remain in control of yourself as soon as there is a conflict, which leads you irremediably to a potential accentuation of the conflict, and a loss of control. What do you think I prefer: you being desysoped? or you not doing such things (unnecessary threat of blocking)? please AGF and consider a possibility that I am sincere when I stand up for a user who I think is being unfairly warned. Why don't you make me lie making sure you don't find yourself in this kind of situation anymore? You can not do it, is it too complicated? in that case, I'm right. You can do it, perfect, so do it, that would be very fine. Good luck, sincerely. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


from Kabbles
Category:Katchi Memon Masjid, Karachi with
This is a photo of a monument in Pakistan identified as the
SD-P-136
Category:Memon Masjid, Karachi with
English: Memon Masjid
This is a photo of a monument in Pakistan identified as the
SD-U-21

A.Savin's answer to another admin's inquiry over the discrepancy of mosque IDs and names: "both categories were about the same, because the pictures in both obviously show the same building. (I don't know where two different Heritage ID's come from; perhaps the other ID is about only one part of the ensemble, as often observed.)" I invite you to look at the buildings and see if they are the same. I realize A.Savin takes beautiful pictures, truly wonderful ones. But does that give them a pass to mistreat other human beings who are trying their best to do the right thing? We are in fragile times in this world. Please don't ignore mistreatment of humans. Kalbbes (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Because I don't have (of course) to expect a fair assessment of the situation from you Kalbbes, I have to specify it myself. At the timepoint I deleted the "Memon Mosque" category and moved remaining pictures into "Katchi Memon Mosque" category, everything looked like these were duplicate categories about the same building. Meanwhile I got the difference. If both categories were sufficiently formatted from the beginning on (e.g. one could see both buildings' location, there were Wikidata infobox with correct coordinates, etc.), this misunderstanding would not have occured. --A.Savin 16:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
A.Savin, what is your aversion to discussion when there is an obvious disagreement? As an admin, is it your role to bluntly override and impose your view on a category that has obviously different buildings and heritage ID's? This after threatening to block me three times with a final warning that if I did anything else I would be blocked, so to make sure that I wouldn't dare to correct an obvious mistake on your part? That is a powerful method of being in control. And you are excusing your failure to recognize the obvious difference in buildings and heritage IDs on a lack of infoboxes? Should not an admin be more responsible in categorizing? If that is your way of categorizing (and deleting correct cats meanwhile), then I have to wonder what the (actual, not written) standards are for being an admin on the Commons. Kalbbes (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
"a category that has obviously different buildings" is wrong, at the time of deletion the same building (New Memon Mosque) was in both categories. It is definitely not me who produced that mess which, luckily, is now resolved. --A.Savin 20:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

i am not spammer.

please help me.i am editor, i am not spammer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimoff999 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see the discussion already in progress at COM:ANV#Salimoff999.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done, globally locked by Ruslik, thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

NoahJohnson123

Copyvio only. What is not is by chance (logos). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

KC photos 23

This appears to be yet another account of a persistent and known sock puppet mainly active on the English wiki. See this sock puppet record. Having dealt with this sock master for almost two years, know he has a history of uploading copyrighted work. Grey Wanderer (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

El Sombrerero

Large scale Flickr-washing (and I've not checked all the files). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

PresidentN

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

File protection or user block

Good morning

For several days the user StuD44 (talk · contribs) has been reverting to an old version again and again and again, violating the rule of the three reversions (which I don't know if it applies here in commons), the File:Costa Rica - Alajuela - Grecia.svg, and although he has been asked for explanations regarding the change, he continues to insist on the same. ¿Could you indicate what should be done about it? thanks. --Milenioscuro (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I protected the file for a month. Taivo (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

IdaS7 - Copyright violations

From his contributions on dewiki, I came across this user, which appears to be uploading Images hosted already elsewhere which do not appear to be under the license he states on the image description page. For example, File:Omas.3e8b2de3bd6c0360bcb0493b13e7ae3c119.jpg states on the image description page that the file comes from there. The Imprint of that website, which is located here Clearly state "Der gesamte Online-Auftritt untersteht der schweizerischen Gesetzgebung über Urheberrechte und geistiges Eigentum. Alle Abdruckrechte sind vorbehalten. Das betrifft ebenso alle abrufbaren Dokumente. Die Wiedergabe der gesamten Seite oder nur eines Teils auf irgendeinem elektronischen Träger oder auf Papier ist untersagt, ausser mit der ausdrücklichen Genehmigung durch die Landolt-Arbenz AG." which translates to "No reproduction elsewhere without written permission". I cant check all of the user's uploads, but as you can see from my contributions, at least some appear to be copyrighted as well. What do we do with them? Nuke them for copyright violations? Check them all? Note that I need to go ofline soon and therefore cant check them all. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I have deleted some files and corrected a few others where {{PD-art}} was applicable. IdaS7 Please note that you cannot make up any Creative Common licence where there is none at the source website. If the original artist has died more than 70 years ago, however, there is a good chance that the painting is out of copyright. Depending on the country of origin of the painting, you may then use {{PD-art-two}} with a template for the country of origin (e.g. Austria, Germany, etc.) and one template for the United States (typically PD-US-expired). If the artist died just fairly recently like Franta, you cannot upload their paintings. De728631 (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: User has uploaded more of this. Example from today: File:Hugo-vogel-a-6728904.jpg. Should we block or what do we do? Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I have given them a final warning and an explanation how to use the PD-art templates. Any more new uploads with a fake CC licence will lead to a preventive block. De728631 (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Serkosha

Legal threat with wikimail.

Уважаемый участник википедии. Пожалуйста не нарушайте авторских прав и не используйте фото и описание достоверно не проверенное, что касается ансамбля "Здравствуй, песня". В противном случае документы, касаемо ложной информации будут направлены в прокуратуру и следующая встреча будет не на просторах интернета а в прокуратуре РФ, в связи нарушением авторских прав ВИА "Здравствуй, песня" п/у Аркадия Хаславского.

tranlate:

Dear Wikipedia Member Please do not violate copyrights and do not use photos and descriptions that are not authentically verified with respect to the "Hello, song" ensemble. Otherwise, documents regarding false information will be sent to the prosecutor’s office and the next meeting will not be on the Internet but in the Russian prosecutor’s office, in connection with copyright infringement of VIA "Hello, song" by Arkady Khaslavsky.

--Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Indef'd for this and the disrupting series of DRs and this vandalism. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Vitaly Zdanevich

Vitaly Zdanevich (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  persistent mass copyvio uploads just after multiple warnings. --VLu (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

On this file the license is open, for a few other files my friends will set the license to the source pages soon. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about my old family scanned photos, I understood the rules (I do not know who is the author, so I will upload this photos in the year 2040. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Nawab Afridi ‎

Nawab Afridi has been blocked as the master account for sockpuppetry on English Wikipedia per en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nawab Afridi/Archive. Quite a number of sock accounts were also blocked as part of that SPI and at least two (Monika Aslam and Aslam Piara) are also active on Commons. Many of the files uploaded by Nawab Afridi have already been deleted, but others are still being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nawab Afridi. Some files uploaded by Monika Aslam have already been deleted as copyvios and the only file uploaded by Aslam Piara has also been tagged as a copyvio.

Does a separate SPI need to be started for Commons or is the result of the one done on English Wikipedia OK for Commons purposes? I guess it's possible that there could be more accounts being used to upload files to Commons that didn't edit on English Wikipedia and thus didn't show up in that SPI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I have always trusted checkusers of other projects, including en.wiki. But abusing multiple accounts in en.wiki does not mean, that these accounts are used for abusing in Commons. I'll block one of the accounts, but not others. Taivo (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
That's fine Taivo and thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Paswodnik

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

Removes deletion templates again and again or reuploads deleted images despite having being warned that their images were out of scope (and continues the same uploads on English Wikipedia as well). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Capitano1988

Continues with copyvio after 3 months block. --Timk70 (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. He has not edited for 3 months and after block he has uploaded only 1 copyvio, so block is not useful at moment. The copyvio is nominated for deletion, that's enough. Taivo (talk) 06:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Spambots

  1. Cvm01 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  2. Feyguli64 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  3. Jakartae34 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  4. Lithiye3 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  5. Rabeya234 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  6. Rimiy445 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  7. Riskman22 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  8. Seomarketingbuddy (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  9. Shikha7er (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  10. Skeidgrt2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  11. Skiuryoi5 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  12. Uerdowan34 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Spambots with copyvio uploads, Seomarketingbuddy might not be bot, but is still spam.--BevinKacon (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Spam uploads deleted, accounts blocked indefinitely. —RP88 (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Selfie uploader

Persistent selfie uploader, all same user...-BevinKacon (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, BevinKacon. All accounts blocked, most uploads deleted. Some of the uploads are used in Draft:K Scream. This draft is unlikely to see ever the article space but I will not speedy such cases. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/K scream has been opened to give en:wp the opportunity to cleanup this mess on their project. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The accounts have been blocked and tagged. The draft has been deleted. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Dreamy Jazz for the notification. I've now speedied the two remaining uploads. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Notification by bot problems

Unhappily, my talk page has several notices pasted this morning in the format:

"Nominated for deletion by AntiCompositeBot. I am a software, please do not ask me questions but the user who nominated your file for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk)"

This is an incorrect use of two bot accounts because

  1. The notification link to User talk:Deletion Notification Bot does not indicate who the bot operator is, instead directing reader to the help desk. It is therefore unnecessarily convoluted to ask questions of the bot operator.
  2. The account User:AntiCompositeBot is a bot account. It is not acceptable for deletion nominations to have a bot as the named nominator, again this evades accountability and makes readers confused about who to direct questions at.
  3. The notifications are pointless as were a human to examine the dates and content, or the source link and statements in the EXIF data, or the Internet Archive identity in the upload comment which is itself a unique source, the documents are pre-1925 and published in the US, so public domain. The fact that the WMF servers appear to be glitchy and failing to render the page text on upload is not a reason to automatically risk deletion.

Perhaps one or both of the bot operators could put these issues right? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I will make the bot(Deletion Notification Bot) ignore DRs created by AntiCompositeBot. This should solve all issues on my side. // Eatcha (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
An alternative would be to ignore requests from bot-flagged accounts, hence avoiding the likelihood of automated mass reuse. Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
The deletion tags from AntiCompositeBot are not DRs, they are {{Nld}} placed as part of an approved bot task. While a human may have been able to fix the file pages, that does not change the fact that at the time the bot scanned them, the files had had no source, author, license, or any other information as required by Commons:Project scope/Evidence. This had been the case for over a week. It is your responsibility as the uploader to ensure that your files are uploaded in compliance with Commons policy.
@Eatcha: AntiCompositeBot in it's current configuration can take up to 10 minutes to notify users of a deletion, in order to group notifications together. If you feel that ignoring the bot/all bots entirely is the best solution, go ahead and do that. My recommendation, however, would be to delay notifications for at least 30 minutes. That would also allow human editors a chance to fix the lack of notification on their own, before the bot swoops in. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me? I do not operate WMF servers, I would appreciate it if you did not blame me for their failure. The files were correctly uploaded with image page text. If you believe those actually responsible for posting blank pages should sort them out, go comment on Phab:T179884, open for over 2 years and is remarkably enough high priority with no progress.
If you want your bot task to be helpful, you could add a category to images uploaded by me which need attention, so that myself or the volunteer that actually requested I uploaded these images can repair the damage from WMF operational outages without arbitrary deadlines, rather than posting huge warnings on my talk page which are literally speedy deletion warnings, threatening to delete within a week.
Please ensure that it is your account name against deletion notices of any kind, not a bot. It seems pointless to waste volunteer time chasing up your misuse of your bot account, or raising a request for a 'crat to de-flag your bot account on this basis.
P.s. with regard to Commons:Project scope/Evidence, do you believe I need this advice? Read what I posted above, anyone can read the EXIF on these files, or look at the uploaded document itself, or even the filename, to instantly know these are public domain. Files like this should never be at risk of deletion.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
That phab task appears to be unrelated, as the file page was created with the upload in this case. In any case, it is your responsibility to ensure that every file you upload has the source, license, and author properly indicated per COM:L. This applies to manual, semi-auto, and automatic uploads. While I am responsible for edits my bot makes, I am not the one making those edits. It would be confusing and disingenuous to link to anything other than my bot's user page while notifying users about deletion. The bot user page contains the bot operator information, shutoff links, and task description as required by COM:Bots. If you feel that edits made according to policy and as part of an approved bot task are violations of the bot policy, you are welcome to discuss it with a crat. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

(Responding to a removed comment by Fæ) @Fæ: If the phab task is related, it is still your responsibility to ensure that the file page is created with the proper information. The bot notified you of this issue, and linked you to the bot's user page with information about its operator. I see no fault of the bot operator here, only (an honest) issue by you. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

As explained at the start of this thread Nominated for deletion by AntiCompositeBot. I am a software, please do not ask me questions but the user who nominated your file for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) is factually incorrect and confusing because the massive lengthy template warning the user a file will be deleted within 7 days, is not signed by a person, nor even links to the person that nominated the file for deletion.
The idea that a user then has to surf around and interpret more templates to discover a bot operator, and on yet another user talk page after that might be able to ask "what's this about?" is not the way deletion warnings are supposed to work.
In particular if someone leaves multiple large notices on my talk page, I will discuss them on my talk page. I'm not actually obligued to even ping someone not mentioned with the notice, as it is the person leaving warning notices that has responsibility to watch the user pages they are leaving warnings on. I am not required to ask questions in different places, as the person leaving notices has a requirement on them to be able to explain, justify or withdraw them.
Obfuscation of responsibility is a misuse of the bot flag.
As for repairing the files this was already done by the requester for this task. That was hardly a matter of contention, only the logical fact that responsibility for threatening warning notices has to always be a person, not a bot account, not a "help desk". --Fæ (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: I think the important is that files with no license etc. is tagged and that the uploader gets a notice. I do not really think that it is important why there is no license etc. on the file. Shit happens but the only way to clean it up is to tag the file and inform the uploader. If uploader does not fix it then the admin deleting the file will hopefully have a look at the file and actually check if the file have a license or not before pressing delete. The bot is there to help uploader (and Commons). In the ideal world the uploader check the file after it is uploaded to make sure that everything is okay. If uploader does that then the bots will have nothing to report.
And why report it to AN instead of asking the users who own the bot? No need to answer. Just my opinion. --MGA73 (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Aguilas El Ambiente

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a month. Taivo (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Johnt96

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Copyvios stopped after you warned the user. Thank you for that! No other action is needed at moment. Taivo (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

PhotoBooth11

User keeps overwrwriting files again and again despite repeated warnings. Tm (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Above editor keeps reverting [9], [10] and [11], even though I added better quality versions. Also editor has multiple copyright violations: [12] and has been blocked multiple times: [13] PhotoBooth11 (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • PhotoBooth11 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) was politely recommended as to COM:Overwrite on their talk page, but appears unwilling to follow it. Persistent re-reverting the overwrites has escalated very quickly, unfortunately. My involvement is only as the original uploader of the Parliament collection. --Fæ (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • All edits that Fae is referring to have been reverted to original format. PhotoBooth11 (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Not by you for sure. And now you are opening deletion requests of images that you overwrote and were reverted. Pure tamtrum and spite. Tm (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Images, I must point out, have no sources or proof of ownership. You reverted my edits of better quality and sourced versions of these images, which I did to make them better PhotoBooth11 (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Images that have clearly marked authors as being the uploaders and where there is no proof or suspicion of copyright violation and you had your images reverted as you overwrote said images with images that had other authors\licenses without any attribution and so you made dozens of copyright violations, misattributed images to false authors, in resume you stole images of others and misattributed them to others. And now you dare to acuse the same authors (that you overwrote and so misattributed their images with other authors work of this images) of committing copyright violations just on a whim and with zero proof? If this is not hypocrisy, i do not know what is. Tm (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Just because someone says they are the owner doesn't mean they actually are. Plus Aren't multiple images you've uploaded [14] being deleted for copyright violations? PhotoBooth11 (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • With way more than 200.000 files uploaded you can find less than 200 nominations for deletion and most are for other reasons other then copyvio (scope, etc) and most of them have been kept. Even if those were 200 copyright violations, this is less than 0,1%, so your attempt is toothless and meaningless. Tm (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • FYI Photobooth11 has a very similar name to a sock of a chronic sockpuppeteer on en:wiki Marquis de la Eirron, "User:PhotoBooth1111" [[15]]. The edits and interests (and problems) are very similar too. I believe that this editor has been blocked on Commons too, under the name JimmyJoe87 (and others) [16]. I think the editor is even globally locked. I am not familiar with Commons processes so will leave it up to editors more familiar with structures here to figure out what to do from here.Slp1 (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I should add that one of their confirmed socks EndofAll2020 on en:wikipedia replaced the version of the John Nicolson portrait that PhotoBooth11 is trying to delete here on Commons.Slp1 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletions in the Data namespace

I added a {{SD}} template to Data:CapitolHillAutonomousZone.map on June 18.[17]

It still has not been deleted, and I think I know why: the file is not in the category Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. What are we to do about copyright violations in the Data namespace? Are they all supposed to go through COM:DEL? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The lack of support for categories in the Data namespace is discussed in Phabricator ticket #T155290, as a work around you can sometimes get acceptable results by putting categories and maintenance templates on the talk page. I'll convert the speedy into a regular deletion request. —RP88 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
A functional DR is now at Commons:Deletion requests/Data:CapitolHillAutonomousZone.map. —RP88 (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Problematic user adding copyvios

See also w:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Shahnwaz_aalam. In short, this user has engaged in only promotional editing and the few images they have added here are also either that or unambiguous copyright infrigements (I've looked at them and a quick google reverse image search reveals they've all been published elsewhere, which means the user's statement that they are "own work" is highly unlikely), which need, of course, to be deleted. RandomCanadian (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted uploads and blocked as NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: You missed File:Tyuiopppppfghjk.jpg (which is first and foremost a nonsense title, second a copyvio from a yet unknown source); and the other remaining image which although under a deletion discussion could probably be speedied as a clear misuse of this as a webhost (CSD U5 on WP, I guess there's one here for that too) without too much objection. RandomCanadian (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done Weird, the mass delete page must have missed those. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

ROYAL (OFFICIAL)

Same OOS uploads as Indian Smart Boys (talk · contribs) and Bollywood Heroes (talk · contribs). Read en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vishal Ravat/Archive#Vishal Ravat. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted uploads and blocked the accounts. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Censorship warrior

Walther16 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Could someone investigate and mass revert all the disruptive DRs ("Obscenity") against sexual/nudity related files please? These are otherwise going to waste a lot of volunteer time. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I answered in the talk page. I arrived from the (controverse) Italian article to the Wikimedia page. I confess I was frightened. However, I'll stop, of course. Perhaps a look on this category could be useful. Thank you, yours, --Walther16 (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Fæ: Please try to discuss with user BEFORE the AN/U (who has agreed to stop his uploads since my message) instead of creating another instant drama you are a specialist of. Yours, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
No thanks, this was vandalism. It needs mass reversion and so can be raised here. Please do not shut down vandalism reports, it's unhelpful. As are personal attacks to malign the character of other contributors. Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you ignore it @Fæ: but I launch a few hundreds deletion requests each day (DRs and SDs) and I wait patiently their closing by an Administrator (even if they are several months old) because I know there's a huge backlog. You should know that Administrators are not at your instant service and don't have to stop and take stock at your conveniance to speedy DRs. You should know too that it's SDs that are generally challenged and transformed into regular DRs to allow discussion, not the contrary. And perhaps uploaders of these images targeted by Walther16 have something to say to defend their uploads. But they are things (among others) you seems not to care of... so it's funny you talk about "wasting a lot of volunteer time." --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed vandalism and disruptive. Reverts would be good as in earlier situations some pictures in a mass action are removed because of all the confusion. --Hannolans (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
No it wasn't. We have servers in Virginia these days which means this applies https://vacode.org/18.2-372/ .Geni (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2020 UTC)
  • I agree with Fæ below: If this is for real, then we should not have servers in Virginia: WMF servers should be located only in civilized places, for known reasons concerning copyright and freedom of speech. Lets discuss this elsewhere, with wide exposure. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Most places in the US have obscenity laws; Wikipedia seems to imply every state in the US except Oregon. They're very hard to enforce; arguably, any work that is in scope should pass the "have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value" rule, and juries have not been friendly with attempts to criminalize something so common. That rule is so strict, I'd almost argue that we shouldn't have anything that doesn't pass it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done? Walther promised to stop in his user talkpage. The discussion on the talkpage can be taken as official warning. If he really stops, then nothing else is needed. Taivo (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

If @Geni: wants to enforce a new "obscenity" commons policy which is not "censorship", that can be a separate thread or a community proposal for the new policy. Let's look forward to reading it. So there's no point in keeping this open. --Fæ (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Sanya3

Background: I emptied and then wanted to delete Category:Ukrainian churches in Russia, because it is absolutely meaningless category, especially when you see category tree of it. In addition to meaninglessness of this category there was a problem with obviously wrong mother categories and overcategozation: Category:Ukrainian churches in Russia has such mother categories as Category:Churches in Russia, Category:Churches in Russia by denomination (which is a sub of Churches in Russia; ukrainian church is not denomination), Category:Churches in Russia by name (which is a sub of Churches in Russia; ukrainian churches is not name of churches as buildings), Category:Ukrainian diaspora in Russia, Category:Ukrainian culture in Russia (which is a sub of Ukrainian diaspora in Russia).

Then, the only subcategory of Category:Ukrainian churches in Russia is Category:Cossack Baroque churches in Russia — category of churches by architectural style in Russia. Non of them (or the majority) is Ukraininan orthodox churches or smth like this. Placing Category:Cossack Baroque churches in Russia in Category:Ukrainian Baroque was enough in my opinion.

Finally there are no russian, french, italian, american or ukrainian churches. There are Russian or Ukrainian Orthodox Church and so on. And this is what can be called denomination.

At User talk:Sanya3 you can find several messages about his overcategorization cases. User:Ghirlandajo once wrote him a message that Category:Ukrainian churches is meaningless category and then was blamed by Sanya3 in "Russian chauvinism". I wrote the same thing and added about overcategorization problem and was blamed at my User_talk:Stolbovsky#Vandalism user talk in "Russian chauvinism" too. I and Ghirlandajo wrote about problems with category, Sanya3 wrote about our personalities. My edits at Category:Ukrainian churches were reverted with words that it was vandalism, imposing Russian imperialist bias.

Summing up all of this, I think that Category:Ukrainian churches should be deleted as meaningless, User:Sanya3 should be warned as I find it unacceptable to blame in chauvinism in case above. --Stolbovsky (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I deleted the category and fully protected it against recreation for a year. Taivo (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I was never notified of any discussion about this, as should have been done. How can I explain anything or defend myself without being notified? User Stolbovsky is pursuing a personal vendetta against me and keeps requesting deletions of things I have created or added (such as here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Worldwide_News_Ukraine.jpg). There is a variety of Ukrainian churches that exist all over the world. A good example would be the category I created for Ukrainian churches in the United States as a parent category for all the categories of Ukrainian churches that exist in the United States. Now, Ukrainian denominations are persecuted in Russia, but they do exist, including Ukrainian Orthodox, Ukrainian Greek Catholic and so on. And so a parent category for them does make sense as well. --Sanya3 (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I unprotected and restored the category. At first, Sanya should be mentioned about the discussion. At second, a lot of countries have Ukrainian churches (look Category:Ukrainian churches by country), why not Russia? I removed some categories and I am warning now Sanya not to overcategorize files and categories. Taivo (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
At first, Sanya was mentioned, just look at least at the name of the theme (and then once or twice in the text). At second, I wrote that the whole category tree Category:Ukrainian churches should be deleted as meaningless, not only in Russia. All subcategies of it were created by Sanya, we do not have anything similar for any other churches. It is ok to use such categories as "Ukrainian Greek Catholic" or "Ukrainian Orthodox", but form "Ukrainian churches in /country/" is strange and nonsence. There are no French churches in Germany, Russian churches in Poland and so on. None of wiki has such category. --Stolbovsky (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
And what about warning about his blaming in "Russian chauvinism", "Russian imperialism" and now "personal vendetta". Or it is ok behavior? --Stolbovsky (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Fvalzano copyvio

I'm not sure how this works at commons, but at a review of the en wiki article en:Wyangala (en:Talk:Wyangala/GA3), I found a lot of images uploaded as own work or other CC-BY licenses on here that were blatant copyvio. Image links and details at that review page. Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I have deleted a lot of obvious copyvios from third-party websites. Now we still need to deal with the images that may be PD. Many of these look like they qualify for {{PD-Australia}}. De728631 (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

low quality smear filters

User 通りすがりの猛者 (talk · contribs) is once again replacing images with ones with low quality smear and colour filters after his ban from the last time he did this expired. I have manually reverted the recent ones he did it to (throughout June) --Havsjö (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Havsjö: That was a block, not a ban.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: okay, block then? I dont see what this changes with what I was reporting on, namely the continuation of replacing images with his own amateur filters which was the cause for the previous blocks. --Havsjö (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I blocked for a week originally, then Rodhullandemu blocked for a month. Clearly this was not a deterrant so I have indeffed. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Spambots 2

  1. Acuman243 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  2. Bisokakyt3 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  3. Bluebire34 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  4. Fastworker3 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  5. Fulios77 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  6. Fuojiya34 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  7. Iamginiuos (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  8. Jubaidae45 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  9. Jumunabp65 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  10. Kumire34 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  11. Labono32 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  12. Linaer32 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  13. Lunalaxi756 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  14. Malik23541 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  15. Maliya65r (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  16. Masurat45 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  17. Monia388 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  18. Monika3212 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  19. Monishari0 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  20. Mousishikha3 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  21. Moxs0v1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  22. Mrgubber2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  23. Nabironr32 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  24. Naharumi432 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  25. Najiare3 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  26. Narue453 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  27. Nasima34332 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  28. Nasima43 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  29. Rahuba77 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  30. Refeya63 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  31. Reshmie2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  32. Rubiya343 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  33. Rynesme2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  34. Salminy43 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  35. Semu653 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  36. Shikhae23 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  37. Shompauyg65 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  38. Srabeya45 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  39. Sretiir6 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  40. Srrabeou4 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  41. Srtn6 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  42. Sufiatde3 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  43. Sumaiya334 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  44. Sumitaboruya2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  45. Tariqar54 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  46. Ujeem183 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  47. Umidap654 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  48. Utamaw3 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Spambots with uploads, there is a unique pattern that creating a new COM:AF would block them.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Will have a look tomorrow. If I remember right we've had a very similar case about 2 years ago, lasted many weeks and was CU'd. --Achim (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:Achim55, more for you, I added some help for you this time:
Good luck!--BevinKacon (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

All blocked and nuked, also

Some files from flickr or pixabay are kept after having been cleaned up. Took a while because I extracted all spam links (~200) and added them to my SBL. So

✓ Done for now, will do some further investigations. Many thanks to BevinKacon! --Achim (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Shall I stop reporting them? If they're coming from same network, maybe rangeblock?--BevinKacon (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Santiago Plá Casuriaga copyvi

Long history of copyvio uploads, still making no attempt to upload only free content, such as File:Tupac Shakur.jpg.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done - Although I note that this particular example (File:Tupac Shakur.jpg) goes too far. The uploader cited a source that purported the image to be free. It is clearly license laundering, but credulity is not the same as "making no attempt to upload only free content." I've blocked them for other uploads subsequent to their previous block that did not even have a source that purported a free license. Эlcobbola talk 17:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Santiago0812pe

✓ Done. Blocked for a month. All uploads since 2012 are deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

File:OV-10A Bronco of VMO-1 takes off from USS Nassau (LHA-4), in 1983 (6429213).jpg

Just a comment. The caption for this picture may not be accurate. The aircraft involved is stated as being from VMO-1. I was a member of VMO-1 at the time of the photo. The orange paint scheme is a distinctive marking of aircraft that belong to the Navy’s Flight Test program conducted out of NAS Patuxent River, MD. The aircraft may have once belonged to VMO-1 but if the paint scheme is any indicator the aircraft was transferred to the flight test program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetta2492 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Cobatfor as uploader.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi. thank you for your information. Concerning the old U.S. Defenseimagery files that are now on NARA, often the information given is problematic. One of the best examples is this photo File:F-4J Phantom II of VF-92 in flight in 1973.jpg which was taken some 22 years ealier than stated in the caption. There is a series about OV-10 Broncos aboard USS Nassau. The date given is an indicator that something might not be correct. I found out that when the date is "1 January", often it is an indicator that the person who put it online did not know when it was taken. The original file name "330-CFD-DN-SC-88-00799" can be an indication that the photo was taken actually much later, as most files were filed in the same year or the following year. In the other photos, the tail code of VMO-1 "ER" is visible. But this my be a completely different aicraft. I loaded this up twelve years ago and at that time I probably assumed that the plane was from VMO-1 as much as I assumed that the photo was taken in 1983. Therefore, any additional information is always welcome! Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

LordBelburyisaracist

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

Now indef-blocked. Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Andreone93

Andreone93 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Uploading copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your work, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Maazarshad45

Uploaded another copyvio after final warning.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I have deleted File:Political Map of Pakistan.jpg. which was uploaded in April this year. However, since the uploader hasn't been active for several weeks anything else than a very long block would be moot. So I'm not taking any further preventive actions here. Please report again if new copyvios occur from this user. De728631 (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Gambling spam

  1. Lifan24 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  2. Asihawaeedyo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  3. Maria09khan (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  4. Lozl456 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

All spamming gambling.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting collection - thanks - ✓ sorted I think --Herby talk thyme 12:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Flickr spam

Bot spammer now using Flickr images to spam.

  1. File:Our Villa.jpg
  2. File:CreativeTools.se - ZPrinter-made plastic injection mold 42.jpg
  3. File:Image from page 14 of "Biological control of fusarium crown rot of tomato" (1980).jpg
  4. File:Food stall on Soi Rambuttri.jpg
  5. File:Black-world-map-wallpaper-11090-hd-wallpapers.jpg
  6. File:CCP 009 -- Woman Looking At Screen.jpg
  7. File:Honig aus Frankfurt-Rödelheim.jpg
  8. File:Nerium oleander Naturazi Health.jpg
  9. File:Diamond Ring 25416581.jpg
  10. File:Mount Kilimanjaro at Sunset (Explored).jpg

Needs range block or abuse filter.--BevinKacon (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

To range block would need CU access/request. Otherwise ✓ sorted I think. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

MHosseinafshar

Uploading copyvios again after block expired.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@user:BevinKacon Thanks for your attention. Can you tell me which one of my uploads are copyvio? Thanks--MHosseinafshar (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Coming as a disinterested user, File:Omid Community.jpg is a picture with no meaningful EXIF data, at web sizes and overcompressed (note the JPEG artifacts at the top), and as far as I can tell, without a precise location, it must have been from a helicopter, unless there's a surprise skyscraper taller than anything you can see in the photo or at w:fa:شهرک امید. File:Javid Nikpour 01.jpg is a fairly skilled artistic photograph, which was a bad choice of styles if it was done for Wikipedia. File:Iman Farzin at 2018 FIFA World Cup - Asian Qualifiers.jpg is from an accredited photographer, and has a 2020 date in the infobox. File:Iman Farzin in Rio 2016 Olympic Games.jpg is likewise from an accredited photographer. All these are likely copyvios.
I was writing these up as I got to them, and I happened to get to this one last. File:Iman Farzin at the AFC Champions League 2017.jpg says "Copyright holder: photoaman.com" in the EXIF, and lo and behold, that's the "First Iranian Sport Photo Agency" according to the headline on their website. And I thought there might only be circumstantial evidence up to this point. They should all be deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@user:Prosfilaes thanks for your clear explains. about File:Omid Community.jpg I made it via my own helishot and not with a helicopter. I will add the precise location into the information. File:Javid Nikpour 01.jpg I agree with you that it is not a good choise for wikipedia and I'll try to replace it with another picture. about File:Iman Farzin at 2018 FIFA World Cup - Asian Qualifiers.jpg it is taken by my self as an accredited sport photographer in Iran and I have the rights to use it without watermarks. I will do changes about the information. about File:Iman Farzin in Rio 2016 Olympic Games.jpg you can not find it anywhere esle and I am the only one who has the photo and right to use it. It doesn't violate any copyright rules. and finally about File:Iman Farzin at the AFC Champions League 2017.jpg, I have the same comments as File:Iman Farzin at 2018 FIFA World Cup - Asian Qualifiers.jpg --MHosseinafshar (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe you. It's impossible for me to look at the whole set of images and come to the conclusion that that you are uploading your own works and not copied materials. Something like the original File:Omid Community.jpg might help, and under no conditions should File:Iman Farzin at the AFC Champions League 2017.jpg be kept without an OTRS permission directly from photoaman.com. It feels like webpics, not the work of one photographer uploading works to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@user:Prosfilaes how can I provide you back with the original file File:Omid Community.jpg ? and how to provide the OTRS permission from photoaman.com ? Let me know and I will provide you all you need. Thanks--MHosseinafshar (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@MHosseinafshar: please open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail should be sent to our permissions department at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. All mentioned files are suspicious and must have the permission. Taivo (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Taivo @user:Prosfilaes Ok thanks for informing me. I will prepare and send the OTRS email to your permission department as soon as possible. Sorry for any misunderstanding.--MHosseinafshar (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Marathimovie

Started copyvio again, see previous blocks. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I did not want to block him/her forever, because here's only one copyvio (but very obvious!), so I blocked Marathimovie for a year (third block). Taivo (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Luiscamilo.alvarezvega89 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Sockpuppet of user:Luis camilo álvarez vega. Last sockpuppet used was user:Luiscamilo1989. --Bankster (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed (gee, this guy is real creative on naming his socks), and nuked the obvious copyvios. Others may need license fixes. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked 2A02:C7D:3C1A:7300:9CDC:793:5A8B:1702 is back as 2A04:4A43:4C7F:A7DC:A458:D936:1FAD:D4C2

Regular vandal that opens invalid deletion requests, was blocked a few days ago, but now is back under IP 2A04:4A43:4C7F:A7DC:A458:D936:1FAD:D4C2 opening dozens of deletion requests as vandalism, in some using sexually vulgar and demeaning sexist language and in others accusing Commons of having porn (in contradiction to each other). Tm (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Tms talkpage may also need revdelling. –Davey2010Talk 01:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Thanks for the quick answer. Tm (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Davey2010: And what about the dozens of deletion request that this vandal opened? Will they stay open?
I was wondering the same thing. These weren't just simple edits we can revert. Whole processes were started. Normal Op (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I've asked Huntster if he'd delete them given the fact the IP's a troll but that's up to them, Commons allows sock images so my £10 wager is Commons will allow sock/troll DRs too. –Davey2010Talk 01:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

::::::I might be reading the wrong away, but are you saying that this deletion requests will stay open, just because now we will allow trolls and sockpuppets to "contribute" to Commons, just to stick to the some narrow interpretation of the text of the rules, instead of following the spirit of the rules? Just a "perfect" reward to vandalism and a perfect to create a welcoming environment to trolls, vandals, people with agendas, etc but not to everyone else. Tm (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC) @Huntster and Davey2010: After seing User talk:Huntster#DRs i have to strike my comments above and apologize for having not understand correctly what was written. But i have to agree that we should keep this deletion requests and to not delete them, just in case this IP comes back as a vandal and not as an valid contributor (IP being static and not an dynamic IP). Tm (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe I have revdeled or closed everything affected. Please let me know if something was missed. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Missed is not my issue, but yes you did something wrong, IMHO of course: There was no need for a procedural close of Commons:Deletion requests/File:COLUMBUS STATE STATUE REMOVED.jpg because I had already removed the rude wording and the file is not an "own work" as declared by the uploader. Your close did not punish anyone but me and gave a reward to the uploader. IMHO (again). Regards. E4024 (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
E4024, you are welcome to re-nominate with a considered rationale if you wish. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Known vandal, kid or insane from the UK. I blocked 2A04:4A43:4C00::/38 for a month, 2A02:C7D:3C1A:7300::/64 is already blocked for a month, and Nick blocked 2.216.188.240 for one day, should be extended if it becomes necessary. --Achim (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Davey2010 and Huntster: The cranky kid is back as IP 2A04:4A43:4C7F:AE6D:EDD8:D4D6:5865:6F80. Tm (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
user:Achim55 has already blocked this IP. Tm (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 Comment@Huntster, Davey2010, and Achim55: The kid is back again with IP 92.40.182.4, opening several dr as vandalism, deletion request that i closed as an non administrator closure do this being vandalism. If an administrator would like to see if all was closed regularly or do the proper blocks, please do so. Tm (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Could you please stop pinging me - I'm not here 24/7 and when I am I don't bother looking at ANU or at what the IP's done, Sorry if this seems harsh but I'm not an admin so therefore other than revert him there's not much else I can do - I simply can't be bothered with the IP nor do I care what he does, Once Commons adjusts its policies and to be blunt starts giving a shit then so will I = Until then the IP's not my problem. –Davey2010Talk 00:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sergio Perez Cordova

Could someone give some advice on User talk:Sergio Perez Cordova en español? There's a lot of personal information, and not only about themselves on the user talk page which should probably be blanked. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: ✓ Done and notified for you. Thanks Túrelio for deleting the userpage.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The decision to not notify the account, nor ping them was deliberate as their response here was not needed. This was not a discussion about user conduct, but just requesting information from someone with Spanish skills to help the user.
What they have now, is 3 huge warning signs, including warning about "promotion", which is far more likely to ensure they never come back. --Fæ (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: Then your post was not consistent with the purpose of this noticeboard, "Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance" or the editnotice "This page is for reporting users with behavioral problems." I call out promotional editors when I see them; Túrelio obviously agreed when deleting the user page.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Sure, that's your opinion, that 3 huge warnings were needed, not help, and we don't give a fig if we drive this user away.
Thanks for that. My mistake. --Fæ (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: You're welcome. What percentage of users who have made 10 edits to WMF projects, but 0 edits furthering the goals of those projects, will learn what to do and not what to do by osmosis? I suspect it is very low.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
On the rule of thumb that 90% of newbies are going to be a bit pants, what you are proposing is that we should "unwelcome" all newbies by default, making a policy of bad faith underpin this project. Seems that you would need to change Commons:Administrators#Community_role to for this to fly and expect elected administrators to support this, which of course would make Commons an effective closed project. --Fæ (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Not at all, I AGF until I see evidence of bad faith. Every one of their edits was consistent with aggressive self-promotion.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment While I agree with Fæ on his original assessment and on his criticism of the way it was dealt with, my good faith concerning this particular user was somewhat shaken due to a tangent: Why spell their own name with two typos and, if that can be excused as typographic expediency (but if so, why the space?), what sort of syntax is this phrase using?: «Foto en su casa de una amigo» — this is not Unamuno, for sure. Fishy stuff.
Additionally, this is a subpage of the Administrators’ noticeboard, is it not? Why then is Jeff G., who is not an admin, responding to issues before any admin could react? Don’t get me wrong — in my ideal world both Fæ and Jeff would be mopholders of the highest rank, but it doesn’t seem like a good idea to do admin work without admins’ protections and formal responsibilities.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps the typos show they were not 19, but one of the younger members of the same family described, or someone that knows the family, or someone cut & pasting some text from Facebook to create a Spanish-looking sock account, for whatever reason. No doubt if we went on a technical dive, including the one uploaded topless photo of a teenager, we could deduce an awful lot, but as the reason this thread was created was good faith concern for the welfare of someone potentially accidentally doxxing members of their family on a public website, let's not touch it further. --Fæ (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: It seemed that Fæ was not asking for an Admin's help at all, and I did wait for 1h36m before taking action. I have all the Admin boards on my watchlist because I have posted there before, and some people are not in the habit of pinging me when they respond. I also have been helping to maintain Template:Administrators' noticeboard and COM:FILTERT.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Djampa

Djampa (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) is reverting my edits on some ~40 pages about Herodium, and other places on the West Bank, placing it in Israel, and not in the West Bank. See [18],[19], [20], etc.

FYI: Herodium is NOT a part of Israel; not even Israel claims this.

And Djampa does this with a rather insulting edit-line: "La folle-dingue de Huldra est passée par là", which translate.google says is: "Huldra's madman went there".

Could someone please tell Djampa that this is not a way to edit Wikipedia/commons? Thanks, Huldra (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Per this, the user seems to have similar problems recently. Perhaps we should upgrade Commons:Disputed territories as a official policy for categorization?廣九直通車 (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 Not done. I do not want to block Djampa, because Herodium is controlled by Israel National Parks Authority. Taivo (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, that Herodium is controlled by Israel National Parks, does not make it part of Israel: not even Israel claims that.
Secondly, Djampa undoes the "in Israel" edits with edit lines like "vandalism":
link,link, link, link, link
or edit-lines like: "THE LAND OF ISRAEL BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL!":
link, link, link, link, link
or edit-lines like: "La folle-dingue de Huldra est passée par là..":
link, link, link, link, link
There are loads more of examples of those three edit-lines, Huldra (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I support a block of the user for inappropriate edit-lines with sexists insults. If no one objects, I will take action with a 3 days block at 1800 CET today. Pleclown (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done Pleclown (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

user Ckpixel

Starting as of June 5, 2020, Ckpixel (talk · contribs) had uploaded a number of nice, quality-photographies of nature objects in the context of "Wiki Loves Earth 2020". As of June 29th 2020, he suddenly overwrote his uploads with a very low resolution version, removed the description and license templates and speedy-tagged them with the rationale "personal" (none of the images shows any human). When I converted the speedy-tags (as files were not qualified for that, IMO) and collected the speedy-tagged files into one regular DR, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Top of the nature world.jpg, he reverted to his speedies and emptied the DR-page. While he/she should be able to participate in the DR discussion (apart from deleting it), he should be prevented from inappropriately speedy-tagging file and vandalizing the DR page. --Túrelio (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I blocked Ckpixel indefinitely due to vandalism. Taivo (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
They were only blanking their own uploads, they've how edited their talk page.--BevinKacon (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Meacademicone

I've tagged a number of uploads by User:Meacademicone as copyvios, but on checking further it seems that none of their uploads, all of which are by third parties, are freely licensed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing): Please sign your notifications.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done User warned and uploads deleted Gbawden (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Ravager2019

This user uploaded a bunch of copyright violations (mainly screenshots from the bedrock edition of Minecraft) and he did a good ammount of vandal edits where he placed false information for the date field. For example [21] and [22] (replacing the date with some date, EXIF is available). There are other examples where this user does not replace but insert wrong date information. I couldn't find any useful contributiions. Is there a function to undo all edits by this user? --Hangman'sDeath (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hangman'sDeath: I used such a function and notified the user for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Hangman'sDeath: They continued as 2600:1700:571:290:6DAE:7ED1:46D0:4B15.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked Ravager indefinitely due to vandalism, deleted his/her last remaining upload and semi-protected the anonymously edited file. Thank you for reverting vandalism! Taivo (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks, now they are back as Hoglin2019 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) .   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Josemanuelccc (talk · contribs)

Seems that all the uploaded files have copyright. 轻语者 (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

While this is true, many were before any warnings were given, and most were after only one or two were flagged. None have been after the latest set of image-specific warnings and your general warning. DMacks (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
No, I just want to said if consider bulk deletion? 轻语者 (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. I deleted a lot of copyvios. You can create a regular deletion request for remaining files. Taivo (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

JirenXV (talk · contribs)

This user’s entire uploads ([23]) were either screenshots from TV shows (Works of Workpoint Entertainment Thailand) or imported from other copyrighted websites. I’ve already flagged several uploads. But since there are quite many uploads, is it possible to delete all at once (due to Copyvio). Thank you :) —Chainwit. (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

As this notice and the speedy deletion requests were mass-reverted, I've blocked this account for one day. I haven't checked the uploads yet, this block was just executed to stop this. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I've opened this CU case: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/JirenXV. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
In the meantime, 1989 has nuked all the uploads of JirenXV. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
It is now confirmed that CIBX (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of JirenXV. Both have been indef'd by Elcobbola. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
In the meantime our colleagues from thwiki confirmed โชว์มีเดอะมันนี่ ไทยแลนด์ (talk · contribs) to be another sockpuppet of JirenXV. This sock just uploaded one copyvio in the same context which has already been deleted by EugeneZelenko. I've indef'd that sock. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

User:69.38.69.232

Can someone please look into this user's contributions, thanks. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Fulwood_Park,_Tifton,_Confederate_Monument_and_Cannon.JPG&action=history

✓ All edits rolled back. We don't do value judgements in captions. Edits yesterday so no point blocking. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

BerwickKent (talk · contribs)

Coming from en.wiki, all of the images uploaded by this user appear to be copyright violations, all uploaded with the claim of 'own work'. Several are currently up for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BerwickKent and I have just nominated a few others for speedy deletion. I suggest all images need deleting and the user blocking from uploading images. Thanks, Number 57 (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Per Policy I have warned them. I have also nominated their remaining uploads for deletion Gbawden (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

2TigerBW (talk · contribs)

Uploading copyrighted photos after a last warning not to. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done No recent activity to justify a block. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: The files I was referring to have all been deleted now, but they all post-dated the "Consider this your last warning. Continuing to upload copyright violations will result in your account being blocked." warning on their talk page. They weren't "recent" uploads, but why should that matter? --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
See COM:BLOCK: Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. A block that is imposed months after any activity clearly is not preventing anything. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: I wasn't assuming punishment at all. It prevents this account from uploading further copyrighted Getty/Alamy/etc photos as their own CC-licenced work, if they either don't understand or don't care about the warning to stop doing this. This is almost all the account has ever done (apart from uploading an book scan they found online which happened to be public domain). They were active in July last year and uploaded some copyrighted photos, got a "continuing to upload copyright violations will result in your account being blocked" last warning in August, ignored it and uploaded some more, came back in October to upload another, and came back again in February 2020 for another one. If they come back again to upload more copyrighted photos, it's surely better that they have to request an unblock to do it, than to hope that someone notices it and reports them quickly. (It took eleven months for anyone to notice them uploading more copyrighted images last August.) --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
They have not even been blocked before. We typically block for up to a month as the first block for copyright violations; it would have long expired by now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, that surprises me, I thought Commons took a stronger stance on copyright violation when users were doing it repeatedly and doing nothing else. I'll just delete the images and leave the users unreported if I see any similarly warned situations in future, then. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Please make the user understand

Would you please make ShohagS understood about removing deletion tags from own-uploaded photos? He reverted my edits more than twice even after warning. Thanks in advance. Nokib Sarkar (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmkwfrance

I'm seeing some issues with the pictures uploaded by Hmkwfrance. They're all stated to be "own work", but quite a few have already been deleted as copyright violation. None of them have had extended data other then color space. A lot of them look like older image pulled from somewhere, but not own work. Would someone mind taking a look and see what they think needs to be done here? Ravensfire (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Final warning given. Uploads nominated for deletion Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Aesopmerit

Special:Contributions/Aesopmerit - starting deletion requests with inappropriate rationales, eg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sun Club Hot Oil Wresting 2012-05.jpg. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Jurajec13

Continuation of blocked User:Jurajec12 activities (massive upload of non-free content, [24]) under new username. Now using purpose Flickr account [25] to make an impression of CC-BY images and justify their import to Commons. --Teslaton (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

fwiw, they also appear to be blocked on several other wikis for the same issue. Maybe time to indef? Frood (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
The new account is indefinitely blocked for block evasion. I would not be opposed to a extending the block on main account. Between flickrwashing and sockpuppetry, it's clear that this user is intentionally undermining Commons core policies. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Likely copyright violation

A recent image was uploaded to Flickr, then uploaded here and cleared by the FlickreviewR 2 bot. However, this post on FaceBook appears to deem it copyrighted (or at least belongs to another individual):

I would have taken this to the VP forum first, but Wacky Windjammer is uploading in mass batches, of which a significant number are being flagged for having unfree Flickr licenses or for being potential copyright violations. Many of these images are then inserted into Wikipedia articles by various sock accounts. It's worth noting that there was an identical user name in use over at Wikipedia that was tagged as a sock account and blocked. It may be time to take action over here as well. It appears they are going through great lengths to circumvent policies and guidelines at both sites. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

 Info: After having looked at the EXIF infos of the images uploaded to flickr I blacklisted their account on Commons:Questionable Flickr images. --Achim (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done: I tagged all uploads sourced from flickr account Bradley Mason adding {{Flickrreview}}, so they have been rechecked and added to Category:Flickr images from bad authors.
 Not done regarding actions against Wacky Windjammer: I checked their uploads since May and dindn't find suspicious ones. Their block on en:wp looks questionable to me. --Achim (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Achim: Feel free to check out the SPI archive here if you're interested to learn more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bradley026258/Archive
There has been a lot of disruption across the board from accounts associated with Wacky Windjammer, and socks that have come after that account was blocked have frequently posted Windjammer's images in Wikipedia articles. It's what led me here. Up to you how you handle this in the Commons, but I did my part. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

PhotoBooth11

User keeps on reverted British MP's portraits like File:Official portrait of Seema Kennedy crop 2.jpg to the 2020 version, but the 2020 version already existed. The user cannot give a good reason of his revert. He has been warned by Tm and Fæ at User talk:PhotoBooth11#Photos parliament.uk and User talk:PhotoBooth11#Your overwrites. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

A1Cafel have you checked if someone have told PhotoBooth11 why we do not overwrite photos and perhaps given a link to COM:OW? If not that could be a good place to start. --MGA73 (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: You can see his talk page. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Moves

Please have a look at "boob" moves by User:Aditya Kabir. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done I see two moves by User:Aditya Kabir, one of which already had a talk page post that suggested the new name, to names that are more colloquial but more accurate (and frankly there aren't non-colloquial yet accurate names). I don't see any attempt by you to communicate with him on his talk page or on the category talk pages. Except in urgent cases of disruption, please attempt to resolve matters by direct communication first before assuming admin intervention is necessary. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Flickrwashing by User:The Little Platoon

The Little Platoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been uploading copyrighted content (which I'm currently going through and marking for speedy) from a Flickrwashing using Flickr account named "thelittleplatoon1790" with M A as the real name (archive). The user has also uploaded photographs with OTRS, could someone review these to ensure that these are genuine and haven't been forged and spoofed. Bidgee (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

User notified of the AN/U. Bidgee (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I have blacklisted the Flickr account and warned the user Gbawden (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
All uploads from that flickr account deleted Gbawden (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

User:A1Cafel removing deletion discussion template

I recently tagged File:Trump - protest (48001916147) (cropped).jpg for deletion, along with the parent image File:Trump - protest (48001916147).jpg, such that the deletion template on both images points to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump - protest (48001916147).jpg. user:A1Cafel persists in removing the deletion template from the former image, and replacing it with one pointing to a second, duplicate discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump - protest (48001916147) (cropped).jpg, ignoring the note I left in reply to them at the original deletion discussion. I have redirected the second deletion discussion to the first, but that has also been reverted.

Most recently, I asked them on their talk page to desist, but they have again persisted, and have once again removed the original deletion template and reverted my other edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs)

At the beginning, I tagged File:Trump - protest (48001916147) (cropped).jpg as copyvio derivative works. Andy remove the tag without giving adequate explain. Also, Andy tagged File:Trump - protest (48001916147).jpg for deletion, without giving a rational reason to delete, possibly with the same reason. IMO it is a revengeful nomination. The user explained that in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump - protest (48001916147).jpg, both files are included and so there is no need to open a new DR. But in the above DR, the user fails to show clearly that both files are being nominated, and it may cause confusion.

However, Andy refuse to listen to my reason and put it to here. That's fine, let the community listen to it. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like talking at cross purposes rather than disruption.
In general if the parent image of a derived work is worthy of a deletion discussion, then the parent images should be the ones with a DR by default, with derivatives added to it.
There are past DRs for this particular balloon. It would be worth cross linking to those.
  1. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump baby balloon
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump Baby Balloon.jpg
  3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Baby Trump blimp and smaller inflatable - front view 1.jpg
As all the past DRs on an initial search have the same delete outcome, there's not really much to debate here. The main photographs where the balloon is the focus (so by definition de minimis does not apply) should be deleted, along with any crops made. --Fæ (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
No, it's disruption, but by A1Cafel: see my comment on A1Cafel's talk page, and their response, and their subsequent continuing reverts, and now this very section, ignoring the one above, and with the false claims "remove the tag without giving adequate explain", accompanied by a misleading diff (the real diff is encompasses two consecutive edits, not just the first of them, in which I legitimately converted the speedy to a deletion request, as stated above) and "revengeful nomination". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
This section appears to be a retaliation for the one preceding it (and of which it is now a subsection), of which A1Cafel was notified some time earlier, and which they appear to have ignored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Truly, one can hang onto negativity and behave through that negativity, or one can COM:AGF and get on with doing stuff. It is fully and truly one's own choice. Here we assume good faith and assume that it's not easy to communicate only in writing without any input from face or inflection. Very easy to make arguments happen, and easier to hold grudges. Instead of giving free rent in your brain to harmful feelings, please assume nothing was intentional, forgive and move along. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I assumed good faith the first time I was reverted, and the second, and when I left an explanatory note on A1Cafel's talk page; but after that I realised that such an assumption was misplaced, as their post here confirms. I do not, however, hold a "grudge" (so much for assuming good faith!). HTH. Meanwhile the initial issue I reported - that a file had its deletion template intentionally removed, and is now being discussed in two venues, remains unresolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. I deleted the crop and kept the original image after balloon was cropped out. Both deletion requests were useful: one of the images was deleted and the other was not (after cropping). Please give a hand to each other and remain friends. Taivo (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Persistent reuploads of the same files from different accounts

User:Amitpopatdhakane were blocked for the reuploads of copyrighted and out of scope/self-promotional files. then there appears another account User:Amitamitdd which is uploading the same files and creating the same articles on mrwiki, hiwiki, enwiki. These new files have clear watermark which says "Uploaded by Amit Dhakane" like File:File:Bhairvanath_Mandir.jpg and many other files has it. So I am forced to believe that, this is a block evasion and all of the files are reuploads of the earlier deleted files. They have been warned about copyvios and out of scope files too. Please have a look and do the needful. thanks QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 08:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Question to admins more experienced than I am in similar matters: is a checkuser needed here, or can we just assume this is a recreation of a blocked account based on similar behavior, and block it on that basis? - Jmabel ! talk 17:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: Well, it certainly seems to pass the duck test, but then I don't have access to deleted files here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. I deleted most uploads of Amitamitdd as copyright violations. But he hasn't uploaded anything during last 12 months and he stopped uploading copyvios after he was warned, so I do not see a need to block him. Taivo (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Serial copyright violator Elambassery

I found yet another serial copyright violator. This editor, Elambassery, has taken photos off the web and "licensed" them to us falsely. He even leaves in the website he stole them from. Please block user. Elizium23 (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Per policy I have warned them. Given the amount of copyvios on what appears to their first day it is a final warning Gbawden (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Seamenboyz

All of his uploads are low quality pictures of his genitals, 63 of them by my count. Despite 27 notices of deletion and a {{Nopenis}}, he continues uploading them. His username alone suggests he's not here to contribute (and that might be a policy violation in itself). Frood (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
As User:Verdy p is still unable to proof his accusation against Jmabel, as Verdy p has severely disrailed a CfD with this accusation ([26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]), and as Verdy p is unable to move forward to resolve this, I've blocked Verdy p for a month. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Verdy p and User:Jmabel

On what should have been a straightforward discussion of categories, User:Verdy p is choosing instead (or in addition) to make totally false accusations about my behavior. In particular: After he and I clearly could not come to consensus at User talk:Verdy p#Regions of Spain, I posted there "Clearly you and I are not going to come to an agreement on this. We need to bring this to a broader group and get consensus. If you have a specific, reasonable suggestion on how to do." 7 or so hours later, with at multiple intervening posts from him on his talk page, including at least one (7 minutes after mine) on that thread, I decided he was not responding and started Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Regions of Spain.

He then came to that page and rather than simply engage the substance of the matter, wrote, "The statement of Jmabel is false, I've responded correctly each time: he just posted his new response incorrectly above the response I had made before his own on my talk page (I've placed it back where it should be). given the placement, he can't ignore that he read my response on the same section where he inserted his new comment." As can easily be seen when I inserted my comment it was at the bottom of the section; his next post in the section is seven minutes later, below mine, and ignores mine.

When he wrote, "The statement of Jmabel is false…", etc., I responded, "I would really rather stick to the substance of the matter, but are you actually claiming that I somehow faked a timestamp to make my post appear to have been 7 minutes before yours, rather than that you went past it without happening to notice it? Because if you are claiming that, let's take it up at AN/U [my typo, should have been COM:AN/U, I later corrected that] instead of here." As you can see, he chose to continue arguing the point at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Regions of Spain, and is not backing down from what I believe to be a totally false claim about what I did.

I believe the evidence is crystal clear, and that Verdy p is simply refusing to admit an oversight on his part, and is instead casting aspersions against me. - Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I was not in conflict with you before you posted a conflict because you accused me (somewhere else) of not replying to you, for the message you posted on my talk page 9 hours before your accusation made on my talk page then on the Category in discussion. You just don't admit that I made a response in correct time, and that you even saw it by editing the section of my talk page where my repsosne was there long before your edit. May be you forgot to scroll down and did not see it, you posted at a random position in the editing page.
I replied to you first at 15:22, you then posted after 22:00 the false claim that I did not reply to your initial message posted at 15:07... Sorry for you, but 15 minutes to reply is a very reasonnable delay. It then took you 9 hours (much more than me) before making your accusation. verdy_p (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@Verdy p: Unless I am misreading, your reply at 15:22 does not appear to address anything I said, and certainly does not suggest a way to proceed. It appears to be completely directed at User:TUBS remark upstream of mine. If any of that was addressed to me, and especially if any of it suggests a way to proceed, could you quote the phrase or sentence in question, since if it is there I'm obviously missing something.
Also: you said I "posted [my] response incorrectly above the response [you] had made before [mine] own on [your] talk page." Can you indicate the diff that shows that? Because it obviously is not the case with the one I link twice above. If you are complaining that I interspersed my remark about not being replied to directly under the remark that was not replied to, yes, I did that, and I would think it was entirely reasonable to do so; it would have been quite unclear what it referred to if I placed it at the bottom. - Jmabel ! talk 02:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
No the message at 15:22 references a previous thread (with another user) only as an element, but it was really intended for you. I was not replying to TUBS, and there was no conflict with him, I had replied to him and my reply was accepted by TUBS. I did not mix the threads. You just did not want to read it. You wanted to initiate a new (but related) topic. I had even agreed with you on some topics (notably naming categories for municipalities with "in" like you suggested, but also because it is coherent with other categories, including international ones). verdy_p (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I believe you have me and TUBS (or some other third party no other third party, it was TUBS, here's your 15:22 edit - jm 04:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)) confused.
I said nothing about naming categories for municipalities with "in". Although I linked it my edit twice above, let me quote myself verbatim: "@Verdy p: clearly you and I are not going to come to an agreement on this. We need to bring this to a broader group and get consensus. If you have a specific, reasonable suggestion on how to do that, I am open on that. Otherwise, I'll propose a way to proceed." Again, we both seem to agree that you posted after that, so presumably you either saw it or went past it without happening to notice it. And if anything you said addressed it, I still can't find it, but please feel free to point it out. So I went ahead and started a CFD, which seems to me like a pretty reasonable and neutral forum to discuss a category. I stated my case there, and wrote, among other things, "I'll leave it to Verdy p to state the case for why this category should exist and, if so, why this is a good name for it." Surely you would not have wanted me to try to paraphrase your side of the disagreement rather than invite you to state your case yourself. - Jmabel ! talk 04:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I now see that there is at least one point where I was confused: rereading, I see that his complaint about placement of a post is presumably not about my original 15:15 post, it is about my post notifying him that I was starting Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Regions of Spain. Since he didn't provide a diff, I did not understand what he referred to. But (1) this seems a trivial thing and certainly not a good reason for him to derail Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Regions of Spain, (2) he had not responded to my 15:15 post post, he had posted later and ignored it (AGF is hard here: on an AGF basis I offered the possibility that he had just overlooked it, but he asserts that is not the case), (3) the fact remains that starting a CFD is a normal way to move forward when we are disagreeing about a category and to try to get a reasonable broader discussion. People tend to shy away from a topic discussion that becomes a place where people attack each other's conduct rather than focus on the matter at hand. - Jmabel ! talk 14:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


Is there no comment from anyone here, either that one or the other of us has behaved either correctly or incorrectly? - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I warned Verdy p to be civil.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I was perfectly civil. I just defended my case because the accusation above was false. I was correct with Jmbabel and responded him. He refused to read me (diff) and altered the order of talks (diff) in a now demonstrated attempt to disguise the time: that's exactly when he started this thread here with a false statement). And I've even made changes taking his remarks into account. He did not take this effort into account. There's no reason to threaten me. Because I don't see where I was "uncivil", when I attempted to negociate but he just started to refuse any form of negocation by saying that he would not search any agreement.
There's the ultimate proof in the diff of my talk page that I responded in 15 minutes to his message before he started complaining 9 hours later (and posted a complaint on my talk ABOVE my reply to him.
The reponse I made was perfectly on topic with his demand. I think he just was confused by the fact that another user talks to my talk page in the middle before he read my reponse, and he just looked at the wrong thread. I urge Jmbabel to insect the two diffs: they proove that what he claims here was wrong. He even mixed the topic by giving a link to an unrelated topic in Venezuela (for a change I made much longer before and completely separately from what he was discussing), without any explaination (completely out of his initial topic). Visibly, Jmbabel doesn't understand how diffs work. verdy_p (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Clearly, "If you have a specific, reasonable suggestion on how to do that, I am open on that. Otherwise, I'll propose a way to proceed." was posted by User:Jmabel in this first edit with correct timestamp "15:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)" at indent level 1. Seven minutes later, User:Verdy_p posted in the same section in this second edit with correct timestamp "15:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)", changing the indent level of the first edit to 2 and adding an (inexplicably level 1) response apparently to User:TUBS' previous level 2 response, without addressing anything Jmabel wrote. Thus, Verdy_p's statements "The statement of Jmabel is false, I've responded correctly each time: he just posted his new response incorrectly above the response I had made before his own on my talk page" are demonstrably false, and amount to an uncivil personal attack. I support a sanction on that basis, as well as for resurrecting a category against consensus. I applaud Jmabel's evenhanded approach here, avoiding threats and blocks as an involved party, and I encourage his colleagues to practice meatball:DefendEachOther.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I am rather confident I did not "post a link to an unrelated (or even a related!) topic in Venezuela". @Verdy p: , can you provide the diff that shows that? If I really did such a thing, then maybe I've been misunderstanding what you are unhappy about. - Jmabel ! talk 04:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
To make things clearer: do you realize that you've replied several times in the wrong place and that I had to move your message in the correct place where it hsould have been ? You used the wrong thread with TUBS to post a comment, and this caused havoc: I have then moved it back to the correct thread in the correct order. But the difgfs I provided in the NoA board is clear: you misused the talk page and placed in the wrong place (twice); this may explain why you did not see my reply where I had proposed something that you then decided to ignore bny positing again a complin above my response which was polite and poposed something that was clearly in agreement with your comment (when you asked for changing "of" into "in" for municipalities). verdy_p (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  1. I cannot answer a vague accusation that I've "replied several times in the wrong place". I do not think that has happened, but I'd be willing to see evidence. Is there anyone here (other than Verdy p) who thinks Verdy p has provided evidence of my doing that?
  2. I have literally no idea what "the difgfs I provided in the NoA board" refers to. Can someone enlighten me?
  3. I am pretty confident I never asked for changing "of" into "in" for municipalities, in this or any other context. I am certain I did no such thing in this context or any other relevant context in the last 30 days.
  4. Similarly, I have, to the best of my knowledge, written nothing about Venezuela either in this context or any other in the last 30 days.
  5. Verdy p keeps making statements here that have no basis in reality, and deflecting from the issue that he turned a CFD into a battleground. Also, I'm getting very tired of being lied about. I am so sure that I did not do these last two things that I hereby offer that I will resign my adminship on Commons if he can provide evidence acceptable to any other administrator here that I did either of them. - Jmabel ! talk 21:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: I’ve encountered this user in the past, here and in other venues (Unicode-L and FotW-ml), and this behaviour of his is not a surprise for me. I fully understand and sympathize with you predicament, although there’s not much in the way of advice I can provide. I for one value (at least in non-meatspace environments) collaboration quality over collaboration ritual, and I rather work shoulder-to-shoulder with an unpleasant fellow who does good work than with someone nice but ineffective. The recent dealings with Verdy_p I had concerning {{RomanCat}} were fraught with the same kind of wild-eyed accusations, inescrutable typos, unusual threading and indenting habits (agressively enforced), byzantine misunderstandings, aboundant bad faith, goal-post shifting, and much tangential ranting (as in the case at hand: «Spain and Morocco mistreated the Sahrawi therefore I’m right about categorization of subdivisions» — not an actual quote). However, in spite of that and what I feel are inferior outcomes in what concerns graphic layout and automated categorization, I gave up my position in that particular conflict and let him do his thing, and by the end some roadblocks had been fixed — some which I had been incompetent or tardy fixing myself. It wasn’t easy, but I left his accusations hanging there, knowing he’d move to the next shiny object, and to the next interpersonal conflic. I am sure that YMMV, as usual (and not always Verdy_p has something good to bring to the table, regardless of his table manners), and that an admin cannot allow themselves the luxury of ignoring bad behaviour as I can, but what I can say is that you’re not alone. And of course you should not resign over this: The number of good admins left in Commons would decrease by a very wide margin. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I can't even recall any activity in the FOTW mailing list may be a few posts but I have no track of this, this must have been MANY years ago, more than 15 years at least). So this is completely out of scope here.
And in the Unicode ML I've got some respect and many contributions (more in the past), but at a time where there was a lot more talks there for complex issues and different solutions to propose, that were later normalized (e.g. complex issues with Hebrew, normalizations, bidi, ...). I am even granted by Unicode as an author in the standard (and in the past I was also an Unicode member). I made significant changes for CLDR in French, reported and disccused iossues in the CLDR survey tool, experimetned with various algorithms and made multiple tests, and reported many bugs in early beta version of some Unicode version before their release.
I contribute a lot, and sometimes people don't agree and unavoidly there will be some users that will have other opinions or solutions, different from mine. May be what I did could have created a problem with some other uses, but despite my efforts, I test a lot and not all is detected. I document a lot of things as well (in this wiki many things are left undocumtned and cause later unexpected behavior when there's not even any documentation or test pages. I've made many contributions and continue improving this wiki for translatability, and better performance (if possible), or with transitional edits that will provide a comptibility before some needed changes. I try to minimize the impact on others and improve the reusability with less complexity. verdy_p (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
It concerns me that a user can make accusations, exercise bad faith and be generally rude to other users and seemingly escape censure. From what I read in this thread, Verdy_p will probably disregard any and all warnings but we can't just do nothing. Gbawden (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

As an involved party, I feel very uncomfortable coming in again, but no one else seems to be moving this forward. If any other administrator will take responsibility here, I will gladly stop posting in any role other than that of an aggrieved (and accused) party.

Picking up at 02:59, 17 July 2020:

  • User:Jeff G. warned User:Verdy p at User talk:Verdy p#Please be civil about the latter's incivility in this matter; Verdy p, despite having handled literally all prior discussion of this and literally all current discussion on his user talk page in English replied in French, a language Jeff G. has never given indication of understanding, rejecting any claim that he (Verdy p) has been uncivil, accusing me of being l'agresseur, and repeatedly changing my username into "Jmbabel": possibly a slip of the finger -- he does make more typographical errors than the average user -- or possibly a further deliberate insult.
  • Verdy p then came back to this page with another completely made-up story about me, no diffs to support it (because there are none), about something about 'changing "of" into "in" for municipalities'.
    • Stepping momentarily into my role as an involved party: I am getting very tired of dealing with accusations that are not simply unsubstantiated but patently false. If there is evidence, bring it forward. But on at least two of these points (this and the thing about Venezuela), there certainly isn't. Those two are lies pure and simple. It is possible that I am mistaken or at fault on some other points.
  • User:Tuvalkin weighed in describing similar behavior by Verdy p on other occasions.
  • User:Gbawden weighed in lamenting that something ought to be done but offering nothing in particular.

So here we are, over four days into this (and over 24 hours since any comment by anyone, which is why I have waded back in).

In the following I am not speaking at all as an admin: I am speaking as an aggrieved party, and I would like an admin to address this:

  • I started this AN/U section because Verdy p derailed discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Regions of Spain by making personal attacks on me and turning a CFD into a toxic cesspool where no one is likely to come and discuss the substance of the matter. I would like an admin, or someone else who is not themselves an aggrieved party, to remove his personal attacks on me from that page. I haven't the stomach to read it all closely, but I suspect that they are so woven in with whatever on-topic remarks he may have made that the only reasonable way to do this is to strike his remarks entirely and allow him to restate his case without resorting to personal attacks, and I would hope there would be a serious sanction against him if he simply uses this as an opportunity to attack me anew.
  • I was under the impression, perhaps a misimpression, that personal attacks are considered on Commons to be a pretty serious matter. But perhaps I am wrong. Reading between the lines, it seems Tuvalkin and Gbawden are saying something to the effect that because Verdy p is a valuable contributor, and because he is unlikely to behave better even if admonished, I should just suck it up. Have I understood correctly? Because, if so, I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to do that. I believe I've also been a valuable contributor here, and I'm entitled to a decent level of respect: in particular I'm entitled not to have someone bully me and lie about me. If that is not a reasonable expectation on my part, could some uninvolved admin (which basically means any admin but me) say so in so many words? Conversely, if that is a reasonable expectation, then it shouldn't matter how good a contributor Verdy p is: he has already been warned by Jeff G., persevered after the warning (denying he had done anything wrong, saying the fault was mine, coming to this page and telling another lie about me). I would think that for that he should be blocked, and should be subject to successively longer blocks if his bad behavior continues.
  • Again: if something is also wrong with my behavior, call me out. I promise not to lash out at you, if what you say has any basis in reality. I already admitted above that I was wrong on one point here, where I simply had not correctly understood what Verdy p said. But being lied about, with no evidence provided because none exists is another matter.
Jmabel ! talk 01:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
That's entirely wrong. I just complined about the false statemernt you made about me whan you affirmed that I had not replied to you. This was wrong. The only personall attack was here from you against me. I have never attacked you pêrsonnally. all I did was to defend myself against your false statement. verdy_p (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Obviously, I believe I am right here and Verdy p is wrong. On the off-chance that I am the one who is in the wrong here, I will suspend my activity on Commons at this time, and allow up to a week for someone else to take action here. If anyone needs something from me on this, or if it reaches a resolution please either write something on my user talk page or email me. I will not be checking my Commons watchlist. - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I've taken a look at this. My observations:

  • There exists a consensus that Category:Regions of Spain is a misleading name: Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/12/Category:Regions of Spain (closed in 2010). As a result, this category was turned into a redirect to Category:Comarcas of Spain by Jmabel.
  • In 2017, Category:Regions of Spain was turned into a redirect to Category:Autonomous communities of Spain by Verdy p. This does not appear to have been challenged.
  • This conflict appears to have been started through this edit by Verdy p which restored Category:Regions of Spain as a proper category without opening a new discussion. I do not know whether Very p overlooked the previous CfD but a new consensus should have been found before restoring this.
  • Jmabel opened a discussion about this change at Verdy p's talk page: [33]. Note that Jmabel refers to the previous discussion.
  • There are now obviously three options: Verdy p restores the previous state, or Jmabel as the closing admin of the previous discussion and Verdy p agree with each other, or a new community discussion gets opened.
  • On 15:15, 15 July 2020, Jmabel posts suggests to open a community discussion. Quote: “clearly you and I are not going to come to an agreement on this. We need to bring this to a broader group and get consensus. If you have a specific, reasonable suggestion on how to do that, I am open on that. Otherwise, I'll propose a way to proceed.”
  • On 15:22, 15 July 2020, Verdy p, responds to the same thread, apparently in response to this post by TUBS. Verdy p does not address Jmabel's post in this edit. It is very likely that this wasn't considered as this could have been an edit conflict, as there are just seven minutes difference. Note, however, that Verdy p, inserted a colon in front of Jmabel's post.
  • Afterwards, Verdy p responded to other threads at his talk page but apparently missed Jmabel's post: 16:24, 22:51.
  • On 00:06, 16 July 2020‎, Jmabel opened Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Regions of Spain with a very brief rationale.
  • On 00:23, Jmabel extended the newly opened CfD. Quote: “I invited him to set up a venue for discussion; he has edited several more times in that section of his talk page without responding to that, so I am setting this up as a venue for discussion.”
  • On 00:24, Jmabel announced that Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Regions of Spain has been opened. Quote: “Since you didn't respond to that, I have started Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Regions of Spain.” This post was inserted behind his previous post and before the response by Verdy p to TUBS on 15:22.
  • On 00:28, 16 July 2020, Verdy p responded. Quote: “False, I've responded multiple times, but don't expect a response to the minute, I've responded in correct time ! See just before the message (that I've move below my response posted well before your message)!!!”. Verdy p appears to be upset and apparently considers his response at 15:22 as a response to Jmabel's post on 15:15. But I cannot follow Verdy p here as Jmabel's question on how to get a consensus remained unanswered. Jmabel had every right to open this community discussion as this important step was skipped by Verdy p before.
  • In two edits, on 00:30, Verdy p reacted on the CfD as follows: “The statement of Jmabel is false, I've responded correctly each time: he just posted his new response incorrectly above the response I had made before his own on my talk page (I've placed it back where it should be). given the placement, he can't ignore that he read my response on the same section where he inserted his new comment.” This comment is truly irritating as that point Jmabel had at the new CfD nowhere refered to the previous discussion at Verdy p's talk page, just to the previous consensus 10 years ago. Since then, the new CfD got derailed with a discussion that is no longer about whether we should have a category named Regions of Spain or not.

In summary, I find that Jmabel acted with perfect diligence. He didn't revert despite a previous consensus, he talked directly to Verdy p, and, when there was no agreement, Jmabel was open to suggestions where and how to seek a consensus, and, when no response came to that point, he opened a new discussion and notified Verdy p about it. While it is easy to have a misunderstanding during the middle of the night, we still find ourselves here now several days later at this unfortunate thread. Verdy p, it is time you retract from this right now. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC), timeline extended with 00:23 and 00:24, one notice struck as I overlooked a statement by Jmabel. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

But I maintain that I did not attack Jmbabel directly. He just claims that I did not reply to his message in my talk page, whwhich was wrong. But then decided to post somewhere else, affirming thatI did not reply (this was wrong, I just resaid that, to defend myself because I was cited by him). Then he reposted here (once again without notigying me), but also making the same wrong claim. all that was a misunderstanding. I've never attaked Jmbabel like what he claims, I've just defended myself because he was the only one to attack me personnally (naming me without notiying me directly on diferent pages), jsut to refer to his initial post on my talk page, to which I replied correctly and absolutely not with any form of "agression". I even proposed him solutions that he just chose to ignore. When he posted on the two pages (other than mine) to complain this occured at least 9 hours (more for this page) after I had replied him on my talk page.
So his claims came long after and were unexpected. He had initially asked me (on my talk page) to propose something, and that's exactly what I did. My reply there was absolutely not any attack. All the rest (in the CFD and then here) was completely unexpected. And only Jmbabel started these two separate talks, while continuting to ignore the reply I had correctly made on my talk page.
I have followed the rules. Jmbabel did not so I was required to defend myself on the two separate talks where I was cited with the same initial false statement (that I would nnot have replied him). May be he did not understand my reply but this is not a valid reason for complaining later elsewhere and affirming I was incorrect with him, like he did against me. verdy_p (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, a CfD discussion should never be derailed with unrelated concerns. While Jmabel's claim that you did not respond to his post is correct, it shouldn't have been stated in this CfD post. (Note that I missed that in my first analysis which is the reason why I fixed and amended it above.) However, Verdy p chose to derail the subsequent discussion ([34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]). This is unacceptable.
Secondly, while editing at night while being upset might explain something, multiple days have been passed since now. Verdy p still insists that Jmabel's claim that Verdy p did not respond to this post is wrong. Verdy p, you should retract from this. How could a new CfD come unexpected? It is the most natural thing to do in case of a disagreement. You should have started a CfD yourself before restoring that category.
Finally, Verdy p do you see an approach how to unwind this? You need to move here. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The "derailing" in the Cfd started was initially by Jmbabel itself in its first ports when he cited me with a false reason. I maintain that I replied to him, and also included a proposal (that he asked for in my talk page), that he chose to ignore. I did not derail but replied to the first claim made by Jmbabel himself in the CfD, independabntly of the subject of the CfD. I have also replied on topic to the suject of the CfD by giving arguments, indepmendantly of the initial denegation of the Jmbabel claim. I've been correct with him even if he cited me unfairly in the CfD.
But as he chose to ignore my response in my talk page, giving an appropriate response to what he asked for, and a solution and some arguments related to the topic he raised in the CfD, I had to repeat there what I already said in my talk page. I've been fair with him, while he was not fair with me for this topic. I've not "derailed" (not sure what this term means really, that's the first time I see it employed on this wiki, and the term comes from Jmbabel himself; I think this means "being out of topic", but I was on topic for the TWO subjects he made simulateneously on the CfD: first the claim he made about me, then the effective question: I've replied to both topics (in two very small submessages) because he made references to these two topics simultaneously in the CfD inside the same message): I was absolutely not unfair with him in these two small subreplies, there was absolutely no personal attack at all. verdy_p (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Verdy p, you did not respond to this post as this post by you does not address Jmabel's question about how to come to a consensus with a broader group. I have no problem with that you might have missed that and that perhaps you were upset because of this misunderstanding in the night. But now, several days later, it is in no way helping your situation if you still uphold this claim. At the end this is a pettiness which got out of control.
"Derailing" a discussion means that the "train of discussion" is getting of its tracks (derailed) by being focussed on off-topic material. It is always wrong to extend such a conflict on such a page. If there is a conflict, this has to be resolved by using talk pages or by moving it to COM:AN/U, something which was later correctly done by Jmabel.
Once again, are you willing to unwind this mess? You need to move here. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
You claim that I had miseed the post made by Jmbabel, but this was NOT the case: my reply was effectively made after an other message was posted by TUBS, but I replied to both simulatenously (intiially I did not notice that there was an intermediate message posted by TUBS and thought it was cpoming from Jmbabel, but my reply was for these two messages simultaneously. And it contained the response that Jmbabel claimed for (even if it contained also the response to TUBS). And it was correct for both users, this was on topic (for these two posts made by Jmbabel and TUBS) and nothing was a personal attack. Jmbabel then interspersed a new message above my response as if it was replying to him: me should have seen it while editing my talk page, because what he was waiting for was already included. He did not need to make any claim elsewhere (on the CFd and then here) that I had not replied to him (even if the response was not strictly personal as it replioed to two messages simulteneously, as I thought these two messages coming in a very short timeframe by Jmbabel and TUBS were from Jmbabel only).
As I said, I had replied to Jmbabel. I maintain that fact. The interesperced messages that Jmbabel used a couple of time just mixed the effective timeline of events and did not help making this issue clear. I've been fair with him, he was not fair with me by reporting this question elesewhere, but not only this question, but his false claim of my absence of reply. And he made this 9 hours after my effective response that I had made in just a few minutes. During the 9 hours, I was not online busy for something else at home and in an external reunion outside.
Do we have an obligation nwo on commons to reply to every message on the minute ? May be if this was for a contractual work, but sorry I'm not paid by Wikimedia and I can do something else in the 9 hours. Anyway, My reponse and proposal to the initial question by Jmbabel was on topic, and made long before he claimed that I had not replied. And Jmbabelve has admitted above that he intersperced his new post on my talk page above my reply that he jsut chose to ignore.
I repeat it: I've absolutely not ignored the Jmbabel question as my reponse below it (just after the additional message posted by TUBS) prooves it. Only Jmbabel chose to ignore my reponse. verdy_p (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Verdy p, I notice that you still are not able to providing a single diff supporting your claim against Jmabel. This cannot continue. One last time: Are you willing to move forward and to resolve this? --AFBorchert (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Wrong. I already provided the diffs before (I can give it again diff). Other diffs were made above, and proove at the correct time, that I correctly replied to Jmbabel (even if he claims that my reponse was not for him, but the topic on my talk page make sense only as the response to Jmbabel that he expected, and that I made long before he complained 9 hours later that I did not address his question...).
Jmbabel and you are jsut thinking that I replied only to TUBS (my response effectively containined a question about why Venezuela was related to this issue, as I did not notice it was posted by TUBS and not by Jmbabel), but it was followed in the same message by the effective and response to Jmbabel.
How were I "unpolite" ? Nothing prooves it. What was unpolite was the reference to me made by him unfairly on the Cfd and on this page. Jmbabel confused the timeline by interspercing his new post/complaint ABOVE the reply I made to him on my talk page, but that he chose to ignore. I maintain that my reponse was intended for him (independantly of the "strange" unrelated message posted by TUBS), and that only Jmbabel chose to ignore my message; I did not ignore his question as it's proven I replid to him and that he admitted above that he intersperced his complaint in my talk page. I maintain that Jmbabel has effectly read my reponse (but visibly misinterepreted it, as if it would not a response to him). verdy_p (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Verdy p, in the diff you are giving, you are nowhere addressing Jmabel's post. Instead, in this diff you are responding to TUBS in regard to the conventions in use for Venezuela. So we are still at the point where you have no diff supporting your claims. How long do you expect to continue with this? What you did afterwards in the CfD and what you continue here is entirely uncalled for. It is time to close this and I still see no movement coming from you. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
First line of the diff (right side)! You see my reponse to Jmbabel just above the message posted later by TUB ! You don't look correctly.
TUB should have posted in a separate thread with a new topic (this explains why I reindented this message by TUB as I though initially it was from Jmbabel and aligned it; later I've separated the message of TUBS). This just confuses things. But my reply was before the post by TUB and you get it in this diff: it was already there and clearly for Jmbabel. verdy_p (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
No, Verdy p, you still fail to prove your point. I quote your comment in the diff in full:
I don't see the problem in Venezuela as you suggest, I followed the same convention used for states of Venezuela (which was already there: I used the most common scheme).
Anyway I agree with you about the nameing for municipalities ('in', not 'of'). Only communities and provinces keep "of" (becuse it was the most common and already used in many existing navboxes.
For municipalities, It is in agreement with other countries, and the fact that the main category (for whole Spain, not necessarily by province or community) were using also "in". I'm unifying them so that navboxes work without lot of tests (for provinces there's a lot of different naming conventsions I found (so they are used in "all=1" to show them if they exist, but without "all=1" only the first found within aliases is used: this minimizes the number of redirects needed. verdy_p (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
This is nowhere a response to Jmabel's post about moving to a discussion with community input. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a part of the message, the other parts are in previous diffs, and are still present in my talk page.
All this is jsut a confusion because TUBS came into the discussion and I was forced to reply to both users simultaneously, but constantly returning to the topic of Jmbabel. Jmbabel chose to ignore all the rest after TUBS started its insertion, even if I was continuing on the Jmbabel question. TUBS terminted his talk with a "thanks", but Jmbabel got to another thread arguing that I did not reply to him, because I also terplied to TUBS (that used the same thread). So this is only a misreading. I made the appropriate reponse in due time. Jmbaberl should not have complained. I'm not reponsiable for the fact that TUBS just inserted his messages in this thread of my talk page. But I've kept the initial topic even if I replied to both users. And nowhere I made any personal attack. Jmbabel has no reason to complain about me like he did on the CfD or here, because someone else added his own messages and deviated a bit from the topic (speaking about Russia, Venezuela...). This jsut happend in a short time, and it was hard to follow. I thought that during the 9 hours before he complained on the CfD, my responses to him were already there (with a proposal that he asked for, may be not what he was expected, but he chose to ignore it and complain). You can look at the version of my talk page which matches the diff above, to get the full text.
This is then ponly a confusion about whos is replying to who: if you ignore a part of the texts and interpercce a message above just to say that "I can't get a consensus with you", only because another user came with other topics, it's difficult to track things correctly.
Now back to the claim made : when was I "unpolite" with Jmbabel ? Nowhere. Only Jmbabel was unpolite with me by his claim against me on the Cfd, and then here: I refuted his claim (in a short a polite sentence, he should have looked at my talk page then) then replied (separately in a second short message) to the topic of the CFD. verdy_p (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Verdy p, I have quoted the diff you gave in full. This is not just a “a part of the message” as you claim. See the timeline above, between Jmabel's post at 15:15 and Jmabel's announcement at 00:24, I find only three edits by you on your talk page. Firstly, the diff you refered to above and which I quoted in full at 15:22 and two other edits in other threads: 16:24 and 22:51, both in the thread titled Category:Rute, Córdoba and unrelated to Jmabel's post. As before, you are unable to provide a diff for your claims.
The problem is that you are unable to retract your accusation against Jmabel. This led to the disruption of the CfD and to this thread.
Again, such misunderstandings can happen in the middle of the night. But now, several days later, it is time to retract this as you are still unable to provide a diff proving your claim. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
This happened in the afternoon yesterday. He asked for something in the midfdle of ther afternoon, and I replied a few minutes later, even if he thoughht (when posting 9 hours later) that I had not replied to him and then complained. what really happened is that I replied just after another user posted another message in the middle. and he incorrectly thought there was no answer. And this continued later when he created the post in the CdD, and then here as well. Even if I had made multiple replies to his concern, and then in the CfD about the question posed there (not just about my refuration of this first statemen t, because I only refuted it in a single short sentence.
Also I maintain that I did not offuscate/criticized him personnally like what he claims. The truth is highly disformed, what really happend is jsut misunderstanding (confusion when reading unrelated messages posted by another user, to which I replied too and corerctly, but still within the topic created by Jmbabel). How can I explain that better?
What you quoted is not the full text anyway. And there's been other messages from me even before he complied in the Cfd and here, that were on topic of his initial question. I don't understand this insistance to get new responses, or new diffs (or what else?) when all was already provided long before, and respectfully for everyone (but Jmbabel did not respect me in the CfD and here, and has confused more people with his claim).
You need new eyes because visibly you're in confusion. verdy_p (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_86&oldid=435905804"