Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 95

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

Qsaeid70

Qsaeid70 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

✓ Done. User is warned, uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 is edit-warring at a talk page of a blocked user

Comment removed. Nothing good will come out of this. My comment is here for anyone that cares. Time to move on. –Davey2010Talk 19:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Davey2010 started to post comments on the talk page of a blocked user ([1]) which were subsequently removed by that user. Davey2010 posted again and this was removed again, and again which was removed again. At that point, I posted a notice at Davey2010's talk page, see User talk:Davey2010#Talk page of blocked user (permlink). However, Davey2010 continued which was reverted again. The next repost was reverted by A.Savin. And again and another revert by A.Savin. Meanwhile talk page access was removed from the blocked user. Nonetheless, Davey2010 continued edit-warring on that talk page by posting it again. I issued a warning to Davey2010, explaining that this is especially inappropriate on the talk page of a blocked user who has lost his talk page access. Still, Davey2010 choose to restore their comment. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I object to my comment being removed - PMB felt it was necessary to comment on previous ANU threads where I was the subject. PMB felt it was necessary to start an ANU thread on me above .... yet THEY objected to me commenting on their unblock ..... So why is it okay for them to comment on MY conduct but it's not okay for me to comment on theirs?
Also one thing to note - I was inadvertently removing A.Savins comment which I didn't know I was doing (I've emailed and apologised to them) but as far as I know A.Savin didn't object to my comment just me stupidly (inadvertently) removing their comment,
In lieu of my comment being removed I asked repeatedly for the ANU thread above to be deleted which went unanswered (presumably declined).
Anyway in short my comment should stay, everyone including myself should go back to improving this project and this whole charade should be put behind us. This report like the one above helps no one. –Davey2010Talk 17:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment removed. Again AFBorchert why is it absolutely fine that someone participates in ANU threads inre my conduct and or drags me here .... yet I cannot comment on THEIR conduct ? .... Why ?, Someone explain that to me because I'm truly struggling to understand why that's perfectly fine.
Yes PMB is indeffed but that doesn't detract from the fact they previously done the aforementioned things above .... –Davey2010Talk 17:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
It is simple. If someone is indef'd and talk page access is removed, we want them to leave in peace. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
AFBorchert We do but they haven't returned to edit war under a new account or as an IP ..... so why the objection to my comment ?, A.Savin invited them back as a new account so either way PMB doesn't need my help to return and lets be honest they're gonna return whether that comment stays or goes.
Right now I feel like it's perfectly fine for anyone to criticize my conduct and drag me anywhere but I'm not allowed to criticize anyone elses .... that's how I feel. –Davey2010Talk 18:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does this constitute a legal threat?

During a DR of his photos Salim McDoom told me that he would report me (or billinghurst?) to the authorities for allegedly making 'baseless and malicious DMCA copyright takedown claims?' (i think that's what he's accusing me/billinghurst of?).

I asked him kindly to retract the perceived threat but he says it's not against the policy. So i make a thread here to ask if that's true.

@Salim McDoom: Thoughts? --Trade (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I also object to being accused of being a 'neo-nazi islamophobe white supremacist.'. But again, that might just have been aimed at billinghurst. --Trade (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done, blocked - Given the context in which it was included ("And may I remind you that making baseless and false copyright claims are criminalized and penalized under DMCA law of United States and in other countries' intellectual property jurisdictions. So in your next response you either provide sufficient evidence that you have any business filing this copyright violation claim or close this baseless accusation and admit that you have no basis for the claim, or I will have to report it to the authorities"), the mandate therein ("in your next response you either ..."), and the follow-up with the (ridiculous) legalese ("ground for perjury and when there is malice, a form of vexation"), was clearly a legal threat. One notes also the following comments from that DR, included here for posterity:
"I deem this nomination as maliciously motivated"
"I deem these unfounded copyright claims as motivated by political beliefs, specifically anti-islam wikipedia editors"
"I question the neutrality of the aiding administrator as well"
"Stupid act"
"Of course, the motivation here is questionable"
"Pretending not to be politically motivated in doing so is being dishonest and abusive. This is pure harassment"
"you are doing underhanded things and your motivations are malicious"
"Stop abusing your administrator powers to harass people"
"any false claim of copyright takedown which are maliciously motivated or blatantly baseless is a violation of multiple laws"
This is an editor who needs to retract the threat and indicate this conduct is completely unacceptable if they wish to continue editing. Эlcobbola talk 21:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Harveyweinsteinsucks (talk · contribs)

I am not sure what actions (if any) should be taken. This is an LTA – please look at history of Category:Harvey Weinstein or Category:Bill Cosby. --jdx Re: 07:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Account blocked due to inappropriate username, per COM:UPOL. --Túrelio (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Priyanshudhalglt (talk · contribs)

Priyanshudhalglt (talk · contribs) continues to upload copyrighted cricket logos on to Commons to use them in English Wikipedia articles. I have nominated them for speedy deletion, some of them for a second time now after they were deleted and reuploaded under the imaginative file name of File:This logo is owned by ICC. It is considered under fair use as usage is about the organization that owns it.png, and removed them from the articles, but the user keeps continuing. I have pointed them to Commons:Fair use, hopefully they will read it and stop these uploads, but it may pay for an admin to keep an eye on the situation as well. Calistemon (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I left them a warning and a link to the fair use upload at the English WP. Any more such uploads here at Commons may result in a block. De728631 (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

User:GoldenKron keeps uploading copyright violations

GoldenKron (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  keeps uploading images about Aaron Fenkel after multiple copyright violations. MKFI (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Mass uploading images from Facebook and Instagram

The user is only engaged is mass uploading copyright images of TV shows and actors. Already, posted a final warning. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, the editor made copyright violations at File:Apur Sangsar.webp and was deleted by @Yann: , but then also resumed the same activity evident from the logs of File:Apur Sangsar.png, that was re-uploaded after being deleted by @Túrelio: . Run n Fly (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Thanks for the assistance. The user has now engaged in uploading screenshots of from the episodes of TV show w:Dadagiri Unlimited of past and present seasons available on w:ZEE5 online streaming platform. They are as follows:

Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done All files deleted. The user answered to the warning, so hopefully they will stop uploading these copyvios. Yann (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Is the File:Maa....Tomay Chara Ghum Ashena.png also a ( copyright violation/derived work without permission ) as its has been cropped from TV soap poster that can be found here. Is it eligible for COM:TOO? Run n Fly (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it may be below ToO. I am not sure what it is supposed to represent, but it looks like a letter of the Sanskrit alphabet. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

User being disruptive towards my talk page

Qwerty Azerty Piano (a brand new account) are filling my talk page with a constant stream of identical DR's (50+ as of now). Due to the sheer amount of DR's i have no way to respond to these within reasonable time before he have already created multiple new ones. Due to the fact that they are all nearly identical i believe he are doing so in this manner for the purpose of being disruptive towards me (and my talk page). Keep in mind i've had another user, C4ca4238a0b923820dcc509a6f75849b (another brand new account. See a pattern?) did the exact same thing yesterdays which continued until he was blocked by an admin. Kind regards --Trade (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerty Azerty Piano: --Trade (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I think that Qwerty has a valid point in the DR's - they are claiming that the costumes fall foul of COM:COSPLAY and it is their right to open a DR if they believe that there is a case for deletion. You may have uploaded free images from Flickr in good faith - however that doesn't mean they can be kept on Commons Gbawden (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
My issue have more to do with him breaking my talk page with 50+ identical DR's within an extremely short amount of time. He could easily have keept them in one place. Hence why i'm feeling he's being disruptive --Trade (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
If the circumstances of the nominated images are identical, they could be put together into 1 DR. --Túrelio (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I'll often end up doing multiple DRs instead of kicking the machinery around to get one DR for multiple files. I understand the frustration, but I think it's hard to judge a new user for doing so. C4ca4238a0b923820dcc509a6f75849b was blocked for their user name, and if Qwerty Azerty Piano is the same user, that's not a problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Those are automatically generated by creating deletion requests. And that happens because you've been uploading a lot of copyright violation photos. Why claim disruption? Each file is its own case and it is not my problem if you cannot respond to each. On the other hand, aren't you the one who keep importing flickr images without thinking if those are actually free to use or not? Even if a photo has been licensed creative commons on flickr it is still your discretion to check first if those can be realistically useful and commercial-use friendly. As flickr has been used to evade a lof of copyright in the past. All the DRs have been well explained and all points given so this "disruption" is unfounded. Those talk page notifications are out of my control as they are automatically generated.


Instead of trying to create ad hominems like this you should try to think if your actions are right in the first place. As far as I am concerned uploading multiple copyright violation photos should prevent someone from uploading on wikimedia commons. Instead you are trying to get the filer of deletion requests unfairly blocked over things they do not have control with.


And I rest my case. Photos of cosplays are not compatible with CC-BY-SA license because the portrayer and photographer do not own the rights to the characters they portray. Those belong to the creators of the original work. Selling photos of cosplays (as what the creative commons by-sa license try to permit) are therefore a violation of their copyright, regardless if the photographer licensed the photo in CC-BY-SA on flickr. That's just common sense. And I will have to file more deletion requests if I deem it a violation on that solid ground. And the nominate for deletion link is there for that purpose. If the nomination button generates a lot of notification on the talk page of someone who uploaded multiple copyright violation photos, that is no longer my problem. Qwerty Azerty Piano (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I will note that pushing a copyright theory can by disruptive, and not everyone agrees with your analysis. COM:COSPLAY makes it clear that it is at least unclear where cosplay may cross over into copyright issues. Certainly something like File:Long Beach Comic & Horror Con 2011 - Velma from Scooby Doo (6301174573).jpg or File:WW Chicago 2014 - Daphne & Thelma (14881368708).jpg is on one side; you can not forbid people from wearing a particular color turtleneck and other normal clothes through the force of copyright law, and some of the files tagged approach that clear line.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
In general, Category:Female cosplay has 300 subcategories and 406 files directly in the category; DRing each image one at a time is a disruptive way of trying to handle the issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Now he's starting to send me mails from his McDoom sock account through Tagalog WP. Isn't there anything we can do about it? --Trade (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@Trade: Please see m:srg#Global lock for Unknown Wiki Robot and socks.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Tonton2303

Hi admins, User:Tonton2303 has uploaded the same copyrighted image thrice with File:Jang-Wonyoung-Chaumet.jpg, File:Jang-Wonyoung-Chaumet.jpg, and just recently File:Jang-Wonyoung-Chaumet (2).jpg. If your could see the deleted images, it is actually ripped off from the artist's Instagram post. I assume user is aware since they are uploading the same image by cropping it after the previous one was deleted. Maybe need to temporary blocked and blocked indefinitely, whichever is appropriate. — Paper9oll 10:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. User is warned, all uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

flags and categories for sock puppets

Donat 1025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I want to consult with other admins: do you think that user activity is okay? rubin16 (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion this is not OK. I suggest to delete all uploads as out of scope. Taivo (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I just have noticed that user independently of this thread and was going to report them on COM:ANV. My advice: just block & nuke. They are clearly not here to help. --jdx Re: 10:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I have deleted all contributions but haven't blocked. Other admin is free to block but I would have a look for a longer time. rubin16 (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Indef. Yann (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Kwamikagami

This user is engaged in edit warring, in spite of repeated warnings and explanations. In the example case at hand, this user removed, for the forth time, Category:PL monogram for Pluto off from the page of a file depicting the symbol "♇". The remaining Category:Pluto symbols obsoleted by SVG replacement, by the way, is not a suitable equivalent, since it does include images depicting Pluto symbols other than the mentioned "P"+"L" monogram (unlike a putative Category:Pluto monogram obsoleted by SVG replacement). In fairness it should be noted that this image is indeed of very poor quality and is pending a DR, but the importance of avoiding edit warring in general and destructive uncategorization of files under DR in specific should be made clear. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The complaints are a bit odd, with a proposed solution that Tuvalkin has themself characterized as "ridiculous", and this from a user who accuses people of "vandalism" for making good-faith edits to clean up Commons. They wanted SVG-replaced files to be in a sub-category of the topic, which the file already is. If I reverted this particular file multiple times, it wasn't intentional, but rather part of clean-up of dozens of files, trying to categorize the files consistently, and giving it the categorization that Tuvalkin has accepted for similar files. I also figured Tuvalkin probably doesn't know what they're talking about, not just because they're inconsistent but because they make threats and call people vandals for simple clean-up. I don't know why this particular SVG-replaced Pluto file needs to be categorized differently than the rest (listed twice, in the main cat and a subcat, while the others are only listed in the SVG-replaced subcat); none of this makes much sense to me.
Anyway, if Tuvalkin wants this particular file to be uniquely categorized until it's deleted, I'll try to remember that it's an exception and leave it alone. Kwamikagami (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) User Kwamikagami’s statement above shows that basic understanding of (this aspect of) categorization was not yet attained; I tried to explain multiple times: Removing correct categorization (without leaving an equivalent cat or subcat) is never acceptable, even for files that will be deleted tomorrow. I appologize for my blunt use of the term "vandalism" — it’s clear that Kwamikagami is not a troll idly defacing Commons, wrong as they may be in this specific case. I offer that user Kwamikagami should be left off the hook for intentional repeatition of reverted edits (edit warring) in view of the explanation above, though. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Ghost of Shamil

Ghost of Shamil (talk · contribs) uploading new mass copyvio after deletion of early uploaded. --ВоскобойниковВ (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

User:TheQueenD18 Bad faith deletion nominations

TheQueenD18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

After I tagged two of the files uploaded by TheQueenD18 for speedy deletion due to copyright, the editor has nominated my talk page for deletion and user page for deletion with nomination rationales that are personal attacks. The editor has also gone through my edit history to make a couple of bad faith file deletion nominations with unsubstantiated accusations of copyright violation. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Liza Koshy on Pretty Big Deal.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adil & Bilall.jpg. -- Whpq (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah this screams LTA or troll. Either way they've never contributed in any meaningful way so I support indefing. –Davey2010Talk 00:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
TheQueenD18 indef-blocked for Intimidation/harassment: bad-faith DRs; massive PA and legal threats against User:Whpq. File-DRs keep-closed. --Túrelio (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

deletion request by User:L'Élan Wallon

User:L'Élan Wallon created around 200 single deletion requests at 1 Oct, each for one of their uploads, each without giving a reason. The files have different problems, wrong source and author information and no permission. Many of them could be pd-old, but in most cases it is impossible to determine within reasonable time because of missing information. I suggest to bulk delete all uploads of the user per COM:PCP. What do you think? --Krd 09:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This appears to have happened after I opened this deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Châtelet Eglise S. S. Pierre et Paul Incendié le 20 février 1937.jpg. Unfortunately, User:L'Élan Wallon hasn't provided any helpful information in their uploads which could ease the analysis of the respective copyright statuses. The uploads appear to be old photographs or postcards, many of them were claimed to be the uploader's own work (example: File:Morlanwelz La Haine.jpg) or refer to a website but not to a particular wegpage (example: File:Marchienne-Docherie Place St. Pierre.jpg). It could be well possible that some of these uploads could be saved but this will be difficult without help by the uploader. Perhaps the language barrier is a problem. Hence, I would suggest that someone contacts them in French and then we could give it another week. However, I agree with Krd that we should then delete those images per COM:PRP where we do not have sufficient information about the respective copyright statuses. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • There are three accounts involved here, not just one.
There is an argument "Delete the lot, because that is simpler for the rest of us". But that's a weak argument.
This is certainly symptomatic of a wider problem. We don't want the situation where large numbers of old PD materials are uploaded as "own work". Yet this happens regularly. Then a few years later, they're deleted because uploader-issued licences are held to be invalid. We need to improve the initial upload process so that new editors are less confused by it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

JEANPIRETR (talk · contribs) is a new sockpuppet account of Luis camilo álvarez vega (talk · contribs). I already made a request on Meta to lock it globally. --Bankster (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Comment I blocked and tagged the user, but did not revert anything. Taivo (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 Comment I deleted and nominated for deletion some uploads. Taivo (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Luis camilo is back, this time with Narmothis (talk · contribs). I already made a request for a lock on Meta. --Bankster (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done clpo13(talk) 22:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Shariar 375, again

Shariar 375 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is back at removing deletion tags even though the DRs haven't been closed yet, despite a warning by Yann. I suggest a partial block to the File namespace again; this time for a week to force them to participate in the DRs.

I also have a suspicion that this user is either a sock of Mehedi Al Mahmud 27 (which is globally locked), or closely related. Will request a CU at COM:RFCU later. pandakekok9 10:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. The user is globally locked, edits are reverted. Taivo (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Mama1938

Mama1938 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Profanity and insults when trying to explain what can and cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 The user has already received an administrative warning a few days ago - 1. --NoFrost (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Чел, а не проще забанить меня за моё авторское право, где я сам себя фоткал? - (Personal attack removed) --Mama1938 (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
    • К тому же, я тебе сказал, что завтра лично для тебя, могу кинуть видосик с пёсиком, фотки заодно свои, ещё фоточки кину, которых изменил благодаря приложению на тлф, что ещё нужно? - правильно, вы же всегда правы, баните и удаляете фотки "за авторское право", где я сам себя, лично с рукой фоткал, селфи сделал, если (Personal attack removed) --Mama1938 (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
      • ** In addition, I told you that tomorrow for you personally, I can throw a vidosik with a dog, at the same time my own photos, I will also throw some photos, which I changed thanks to the application on the phone, what else do you need? - that's right, you are always right, ban and delete pictures "for copyright", where I took a photo of myself, personally with my hand, took a selfie, if you don’t think what it is) --Mama1938 (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked 2 weeks. Regards --A.Savin 23:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

RIN 2412

RIN 2412 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploads a lot of photos without including the original photo source link. Urang Kamang (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. All files deleted, or nominated for deletion. Yann (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Aakhil Dhiman

This editor has uploaded innumerable copyright violations. As a result, administrator User:Túrelio issued a final warning regarding their copyright violations today at 08:20 UTC. Just 23 minutes later, User:Aakhil Dhiman uploaded yet another copyright violation at File:Khalifa Haftar.jpg. The editor either does not know or does not care about copyright concerns and continues to violate copyright. A block is in order. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

MnKRecords

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

Excessive unjustified categorization. --Микола Василечко (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

You didn't notify them that you were bringing them to AN/U, they haven't edited on Commons since you wrote on their talk page, and when you did post on their talk page, you yelled at them. They're a new user who clearly doesn't know their way around Commons categories; informing them politely how things work here would be much more appropriate then yelling at them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

User:YUKI TANAKA0722

Posting copyvio photos. After receiving copyvio warning, this user post copyvio photos. --Netora (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Shaunpassaic

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

This editor has uploaded a number of files as their own work. I checked a few of them and they had been previously published. I tagged this and this as copyright violations. Other photos came from a site called "https://wblog.wiki/ru/Passaic", but I was unable to find any connection between this website and Wikimedia. Another file was copied right from one already on the Commons (I added a speedy delete, so I can't locate the file name). Without scrutinizing the rest of Shaunpassaic's uploads, I would suspect most also violate our copyright guidelines. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Shaking my head...this photo has a watermark on the front...guess what watermark says?? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
LoL. Last warning sent, some files deleted + DR for small images without metadata. Yann (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Fardmoghag8hga

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed (already blocked on enwiki), uploads nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Staanley98

Multiple copyvios. All files as own work, but all that are left are likely {{PD-Poland}} or should be deleted as no author is known. I reported quite a bit of copyvios, please make warning(s). Thanks. A09090091 (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Final warning given; will go through prior uploads. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao

Probably violates the guidelines #2 on User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao/2020#Namespace block. This user uploads hundreds of duplicated files, with the filename begins "ATR 72/42". Unintentional uploads are usually being tolerated. Regardless of whether hundreds of duplicates are intentional or not, some of the file like File:ATR42 G-LMRB MG 4789.jpg and File:ATR42 G-LMRB MG 4789 (51441284552).jpg are both uploaded by him, within the same day. Unless Ser Amantio di Nicolao can give a rational explanation, it is hardly to say that this is being done unintentionally. Notifying @Pi.1415926535: as the admin who put an indef block for file namespace on this user, and @MGA73: as the user (now an admin) who raised concern about this user previously. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@A1Cafel: Rats. Sorry about that - I do try to check, but this set apparently slipped through. I've tried to move away from using Flickr2Commons as much as possible because it's not as good as alerting to duplicates as other tools; I checked this set, but apparently my checks were insufficient. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Looking through your recent uploads, you have failed to abide by the terms I set, which you agreed to. I see larger numbers of files with no distinct educational value from others in the set, generic filenames and descriptions, and poor categorization, all of which are explicitly listed in those terms. Those terms are merely reiterations of basic standards that all uploaders are expected to follow; why have you failed to do so? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: All I can say is that I let myself get carried away from time to time. No excuse other than that. I will confine myself in future to self-created uploads. Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 Comment Another thing useful might be working on cleaning up descriptions & categories of some of your batch uploads from years ago that other users haven't gotten around to taking care of yet. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@Infrogmation: I can work on that in the next few days, yes. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Matlin

User still failed to categorize image before uploading, has been blocked once by User:Yann, also this user creates thousands of dupe files. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

So what is the problem here?
They're doing bulk imports from Flickr, using Flickr2Commons. They're not the only uploader here who does that. Their imports are categorized, look at Category:Photographs by the Malopolska Institute of Culture. This is about as much categorization as can be automatically applied, as that's the one consistent theme to their image batches. You can always apply more categorization later.
Their past block was (like this) a bad one, but that's no surprise. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Andy Dingley I disagree with your comments here, As someone who used to bulk upload I would categorise all images under my own namesapce cats ie Davey2010/London, Davey2010/<Flickr uploaders name>Flickr etc etc ..... and then I would finally get around to categorising them - I would never dream of bulk uploading and then expecting everyone else to do the work for me, There's absolutely no excuse none at all to not categorise your own images none at all. This was a good block. –Davey2010Talk 17:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
So you'd categorise them, as a minimum, to a category for the source, i.e. the Flickr account or easily identifiable batch. I'd agree that would be an acceptable minimum.
This is what they did, and they've been blocked for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
No you've misunderstood me - I upload to Davey2010/X cats and eventually categorise them properly - Categorising them as a Flickr category is meaningless because they're not being properly categorised nor does their cats show to anyone except those who allow hidden cats to be shown. –Davey2010Talk 17:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010 and Andy Dingley: note that the user also imports several no FOP or no commercial FOP-violating images. I speedied one of these, File:Waterfront Sculpture, Reykjavik (4899032183).jpg, as it was a reupload of an already-deleted Flickr-sourced file. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 1 week, as it is obvious that nothing has changed since the recent block, and the user has been submitting these uploads even after this complaint was placed (including notification on their talkpage), without any reaction. By the way, mass low-quality uploads are definitely not welcome, and even less are mass-uploads of duplicated files. Regards --A.Savin 12:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Clark Kraven

Could someone please delete all of this user's uploads? They're all copyvio and have been uploaded before by other accounts. This account is very likely a sockpuppet controlled by Tornado vermelho (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (I opened a SPI case here). These accounts have the same behavior in their obsession with pt:Igreja Apostólica da Santa Vó Rosa, pt:Rosa Bertoni and all matters related to it. They are also active in the pt.WP where I'll also request their block. Thanks.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 07:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 Comment I warned the user and deleted all uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Taivo Thank you. They are a confirmed sock and a checkuser indef. blocked them. Thanks.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 19:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Uploads by Letsgoforward, CivTourisme, and Futureofafrica

Since Commons:Requests for checkuser is for "last resort" as stated on the description on top of it, I'll post my concern here.

Involved users:

The uploads of these users seem to be related to each other or similar. In some of Letsgoforward's deleted images, the authors are acronyms or initialisms of institutions or cities. In some of CivTourisme's images that I tagged as lacking permissions, there are false own work claims as the stated authors are of different persons and/or institutions. The uploads of Futureofafrica are collages/montages mainly made up of problematic CivTourisme's uploads.

See also: COM:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Letsgoforward and COM:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Futureofafrica.

I'm not sure if the users are related to each other or, just one person or a person and his friends/apprentices. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

User 49lk multiple image theft

There's already a DR open. Delete the lot and block. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done One week blocked. Yann (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Taylorj661

Taylorj661 (talk · contribs)

This user has been inactive for a decade, but I suspect most uploads are not their own. I tweaked some images in a photo editor, and could see the Google Streetview watermark. This photo still has a copyright logo on it. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I've checked all his active uploads for external hits and found only 1 possible copyvio, though many re-uses. Interestingly, some months after his earliest uploads, an IP[2] changed the author-entries of 5 images from User:Taylorj661 to User:San Elijo Life, which strangely seems nobody to have concerned. --Túrelio (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Histsztk

User has received 50 copyright notices since mid-2020 including a manually written comment in their native language and a vast majority of their uploads have been deleted. Today I found recently uploaded File:Pawilon sportowo-administracyjny Stadionu Dziesięciolecia.jpg, copied from the web and cropped to remove watermark and disturb Google image search. Even weather conditions depicted on this picture are suggesting it could be taken a few days ago, that is false of course. Looks like deliberate violating of copyright and trying to avoid being detected. ~Cybularny Speak? 06:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. The user was not formally warned. Usually in such situations warning is considered enough, but considering tens of copyright violation notices, I decided to block the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User-generated fantasy flags and Yann's claim of "no valid reason for deletion"

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nordic flag of the United Kingdom (Proposal).svg I supplied several reasons why the unused user-generated fantasy flag nominated for deletion is against policy and should be deleted. There was no valid (i.e., policy-based) opposition or objections to its deletion. Nevertheless, Yann decided there "was no valid reason for deletion" and closed the deletion nomination as "kept". This close was objected to [3] by an other user, and I concurred, although Yann has ignored these objections and reverted mine altogether. Surely this isn't a suitable way to behave?

See also another discussion in which there appears to be consensus that Yann acted improperly in restoring unused user-generated fantasy flags (Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Yes0song). Perhaps someone could explain that these files are completely useless fantasy images which fall well outside COM:SCOPE and must therefore be deleted. I'd also like confirmation that Yann's claim that Keeping them cause no harm to anyone is both wrong and, moreover, irrelevant to policy, which requires that all out of scope images be deleted, and that is certainly no reason to restore some imaginary flag images for which there is absolutely no possible use and which have never existed outside Commons. GPinkerton (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It is improper to bring your concerns to this page every time you feel like a deletion request about fantasy flags was closed improperly. As discussion on this page has found, there is no consensus for the broad deletion of such flags, so it makes sense that sometimes these would be closed as keep and sometimes be closed as delete. Yann has, in their administerial judgement, determined that your arguments were invalid and, likely, that AnonMoos's were compelling. There is no improper action here.  Mysterymanblue  22:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Yann has, … determined that your arguments were invalid and, likely, that AnonMoos's were compelling. This is exactly the improper action I was referring to. There is no improper action here is wrong. No-one has suggested it might be proper to bring your concerns to this page every time you feel like a deletion request about fantasy flags was closed improperly except you. GPinkerton (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I actually think that determining AnonMoos's arguments were compelling for the flag in question had room for reasonable disagreement—I could see myself coming down the other way, but it doesn't seem to be so clearly wrong that it should be overturned here.
Regarding the concern about GPinkerton bringing every close they disagree with here, I disagree. Heck, I've tended to close their DRs in pairs—1 keep and 1 delete (not on purpose of course, but because that's how it worked out)—and they never brought me here.
I do take issue, however, with Yann restoring without discussion File:Alternative flag of the United Kingdom.jpg (whose DR I closed as delete). That flag has some differences that appear to distinguish it from File:Nordic flag of the United Kingdom (Proposal).svg, and in my opinion was properly deleted. I don't want to wheel war, of course, so where should that be discussed: here or in another DR? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Is anyone actually going to argue these hoax images have a purpose and are within COM:SCOPE? If no-one can even put together a coherent argument why these fake flags should be kept on Commons and not on someone's refrigerator door, why is Yann intent on hosting them here when COM:NOTHOST exists to dissuade the upload of exactly this genre of worthless images? Is anyone going to explain why long-standing policy is "no valid reason to delete"? GPinkerton (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I can put together one. Something like "this is becoming A Thing ([4]). Therefore they might try to change the national one. If they do, no point deleting, so  Keep". It's not an argument I agree with, but there is one. I'm curious to hear if @Yann would be willing to expand on their thinking on this. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not "becoming a thing" though, that's simply a lie. Counties and villages adopting flags where they previously never had flags does not indicate any changes to existing flags are imminent (or possible) and does not give anyone carte blanche to create new imaginary flags based on every flag under the sun however distantly related, which appears to be the tendentious argument to which you refer. GPinkerton (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
User-created flags that were never seen or used outside the WMF or in a project's mainspace are oos unless they are used in the uploader's userspace and the uploader has otherwise furthered the goals of a WMF project.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yann now restoring deleted fantasy images without due process

Yann now making retaliatory filings at COM:AN/U

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#GPinkerton for Yann's response to criticism from numerous editors. GPinkerton (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Mmilesmilana, Matthewmilana18, and Mattyuzon44

These three users seem to upload identical or similar image files with very similar problems: copyvio images of Manila's elevated railway systems, some useless user-generated train graphics containing potentially-Internet images, and more recently some logos that have elaborate designs eligible for copyrightability. The three users are:

Here are some deletion requests involving their files:

One can notice similarities over the nature of their uploads. Are they likely one person, or a person and their acquaintances?

Admins' intervention is needed, hopefully ASAP. Thanks in advance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Ping some of the admins who work on user problems matters: @Taivo and Elcobbola: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 It looks like a duck to me. Эlcobbola talk 17:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton

This user creates storms in tea cup when their opinion in deletion requests in not followed. They should be warned, or/and blocked if this behaviour continues. This account is already indefinitely blocked on Egyptian Arabic and English Wikipedia, and temporarily on the German Wikipedia. We don't want problematic users emigrating into Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  • IMHO Yann instead of creating threads such as this you should address the concerns raised at AN in regards to you unitarily restoring content whereby the consensus was to delete such content. I think it's fair and correct to say GP is trying to find an answer to this and so far you haven't given them one (or if you have I've missed it). –Davey2010Talk 19:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Consensus? On one of those DRs mentioned on the other thread, I saw GPinkerton vs. Fae, with the admin deleting and Yann undeleting. 2 v. 2 is a tie, not consensus, and if you want to make the case about Yann, I think treating this disputed matter of fictional flags as if there were a clear and unquestioned consensus against them is doing your case a disservice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
In terms of other disruptive behavior, see Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2021/09#Fantasy Vs. Disputed symbols where they directed this comment at Andy Dingley:

Please do learn to read sentences before vituperatively responding to what you imagine they have said. The lie that I have somehow been "describing others as a "morass of disinformation"" is characteristic of the failures in logic commonly applied by users such as yourself in discussions such as this. Your tiredness is no concern of mine, and if you repeatedly make personal attacks such as you have frequently done in expressing your view that policy should be changed or ignored or doesn't apply to fake symbols such as you have been defending then I shall have no choice but to ignore you. GPinkerton (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

 Mysterymanblue  21:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
They nominated the image twice and it was a month a part ... hardly crime of the century. Yeah ignoring all that Yann still hasen't provided any sort of reason for undeleting everything. Why are we allowing fantasy images to be uploaded here is the question of the century and one that needs answering (and needs backing up by policy). –Davey2010Talk 21:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, nominating an image for deletion twice, especially when we're having trouble keeping up with the DR backlog, is a big deal.
That is the question of the century? Not the fact that COM:L has said for over ten years "Wikimedia Commons accepts only media ...that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work" and yet Category:Works copyrighted in the U.S. has over ten thousand files in it?
Instead, let's center on a small set of properly licensed images that need to be litigated and relitigated.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
No it really isn't a big deal, I appreciate DR is indeed backlogged but in this specific case had GP gone to Yanss talkpage to ask for reconsideration they would've been told "no the files are kept end of" ... and they would've got nowhere ....,
Indeed we host anything and everything providing it's INSCOPE - I fail to see how fantasy flags are in scope but that's a discussion for another day.
Lets create AN threads for the sake of it. GP isn't to blame here as far as I can see. –Davey2010Talk 23:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Contested DRs, especially about scope, are frustrating; they're high stakes; a file is getting expunged and work thrown away. This had three DRs with basically no change in arguments. When INUSE suddenly disappears, it's especially frustrating, since there's no easy way to see where it was in use, and why it's not; did it leave use because the local editors decided it was no good, or because someone come in from Commons and delete it there to remove it from Commons? In either case, it leaves a hole in the Wiki; someone looking back in time can't see what illustration used to be in that article.
It seems odd to respond to my state that we have ten thousand files copyrighted in the US despite policy saying they should be deleted by saying "we host anything and everything providing it's INSCOPE". I'd stopped tilting at that windmill; how often can I propose them for deletion (because they're in violation of policy) without it being a problem? Should I start 10,000 DRs every month, or just one mass one, once a month, until I get a friendly admin?--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
GPinkerton is all about the splinter in other's eyes and not the beam in their own, I see.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't follow, perhaps you'll be kind enough to point out the "beam" to which you allude? Above, I see a "storm in a teacup". These idioms mean very different things and what is actually referred to and why it is variously being described as both serious ("beam") and not serious ("storm in a teacup") is a mystery to me. GPinkerton (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Please do learn to read sentences, like those on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Gpinkerton. You haven't responded to complaints here so far, so why should I waste my time?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
To be more productive: w:The Mote and the Beam is the reference. User:Mysterymanblue has offered herein several problematic quotes. I see problems with Yann's behavior, but this whole thing about fictional flags I find quite frustrating because that aspect is a storm in a teapot to me. There are some out of scope files on Commons; so? COM:SCOPE has quite a bit of flexibility there, because out of scope files aren't a big problem; it is more important not to mess with other projects by deleting their files, or let users have nice things on their user pages, than destroy every out of scope file on Commons. Whether or not these fit with COM:SCOPE, there seems to be a big lack of patience with other users, and an desire to continue an argument after its costs outweigh the benefits of the change to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Complaints that are spurious and mostly apparently motivated by a desire to ensure Commons is replete with useless images are not worth responding to. I appear to be accused of nominating useless files for deletion; I don't see anything wrong with that and beyond that no-one appears to be finding any specific fault. The "problematic quotes" are made so by Mysterymanblue's presentation; Mysterymanblue, it will be noted, is an ardent believer in fantasy flags' staying on Commons at all costs, and has stated this repeatedly. GPinkerton (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

What you find plausible is none of my concern. Your "rules" appear to be empty whataboutery that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If you don't like the policy, that is also not my problem, but another of yours. GPinkerton (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Implication: another user has many problems

The principles are already agreed, and no-one needs to wait for your agreement to continue work on the project; you have no powers of veto. Your nonsense about the Italian Social Republic is just that: nonsense. None of the images nominated for deletion has anything to do with the Italian Social Republic, which unlike the flags nominated for deletion, existed in this universe. Once again, we see Andy Dingley leaping to conclusions confected from his own misunderstanding of what the discussion is about, what Commons policy is, and what Commons is for. Yet more waffle about precedents and made-up and erroneous (and increasingly desperate) claims about the real world being negatively affected by the deletion of fake flags (which are marked as such, contrary to the above under-researched (and disruptive) claims. GPinkerton (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Failure to assume good faith in others, refusing to give courtesy to others, mocking others’ viewpoints

Do you really not understand the difference between a coat of arms that exist in the real world and one that does not? Yet more whataboutism does not make these tendentious arguments less tedious. GPinkerton (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Assertion that those who do not agree with them are stupid.
 Mysterymanblue  04:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Andy Dingley There must be some mistake: you mentioned "serious debates" and then linked a Mirror listicle with flags (not any of these ones) pulled from Commons. In any case, all the the flags here are marked as Wikimedians own work ("You know this how?"). If you have any reason (beyond your lack of good faith) to believe otherwise, then that's a problem for another reason. If you have any such evidence or policy-based arguments why any of these files should be kept, I suggest you speak now ... GPinkerton (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Failure to assume good faith.  Mysterymanblue  05:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • As per Yann. This is not about flags, it's about GPinkerton's behaviour in all these past discussions. They make it impossible for other editors to work collegially here and I am just one of those who've had enough of it.
There is a reasonable question here as to just what is within scope. No-one's trying to go against scope, the question is what falls within and outside it. There have been some differing opinions as to that. Rational discussion and finding a consensus as to what is being persistently derailed by GPinkerton's attacks on anyone and everyone who disagrees with him. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @GPinkerton: Would you like to say anything about the examples of your past comments that I have shared here? Would you like to apologize to the users who, regardless of intent, have been mocked and berated by your words? I think that could go a long way in resolving this dispute.  Mysterymanblue  22:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll also note that that GPinkerton appears to have had significant disputes with عمرو بن كلثوم. This controversy appears to have boiled over from w:en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan where both users were banned from the Kurds and Kurdistan topic on the English Wikipedia, and GPinkerton was indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. Many of the two’s interactions on Commons have been heated, to say the least, with accusations about personal character flying around. Relevant discussions found with search:
 Mysterymanblue  01:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
User-created flags that were never seen or used outside the WMF or in a project's mainspace are oos unless they are used in the uploader's userspace and the uploader has otherwise furthered the goals of a WMF project.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. This point needs to be made more forcefully, Yann having recently restored swathes of just such images on the grounds that they were "not harming anyone", a defective rationale if ever there was one. GPinkerton (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Who cares? If we're talking about Yann's actions, that would be one thing, but squabbling over correctly licensed fictional flags--many of which apparently were seen or used outside of the WMF, if incredibly marginally---as if we don't have a huge DR backlog and so many files getting uploaded and apparently not getting a critical look--we hosted a clearly non-consensual topless photo for years (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Female prisoner examining her breasts.png)--a world to photograph and categorize, endless free works clearly in scope to upload and this is the point that needs to be made forcefully?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: We are talking about Yann's actions. That's why I started this report. I take particular issue with your claim that "many of which apparently were seen or used outside of the WMF". Where are you getting this idea from? The idea that I am making spurious deletion nominations has been alluded to before, but never substantiated; it is is false. Yann has also used this bogus excuse for overriding deletion requests results and restoring fantasy flags which have absolutely never been "seen or used outside of the WMF". If that were the case, the objectionable restorations would hardly be as clearly wrong and as obviously out of process as they are. To suggest otherwise is obfuscatory; none of the restored images ever appeared beyond Commons. GPinkerton (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 Comment As a reminder, this page is about user problems. It is not to relitigate the flag issue. Conversation should be limited to problems with the actions of the user in question.  Mysterymanblue  05:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
From the content above, it will be no surprise that both Mysterymanblue and Andy Dingley have been inveterate supporters of out-of-scope fantasy images, and Mysterymanblue has openly declared on several occasions that they disagree on principle with Commons policies and their application in this area, arguing numerous times for a laissez-faire attitude that is wholly at odds with the principles of NOTHOST. Mysterymanblue's comments in this discussion should not be considered in isolation from their context and their motives should be divined accordingly. GPinkerton (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@GPinkerton: My view toward fantasy flags has essentially nothing to do with my views toward your behavior on Wikimedia Commons, which is the essential issue for this noticeboard. If you'd like to discuss, I'd be more willing to respond at the main Administrators' Noticeboard page where discussion about fantasy flags in general has already begun and is more germane.  Mysterymanblue  16:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Has anyone said anything different? Although GPinkerton keeps presenting "uploader's own drawing work" as "uploader's invention fron nowhere".
We could (more usefully) have a discussion on just how much off-wiki presence is needed for a flag before we see it as being within scope. There are many here where they're not the current official flag of a nation or group, but they have been put forward by reputable and substantial groups as potential flags, maybe for some new state group or identified group. We do still need to have the discussion about what level of independent existence and supporting evidence is needed, but that's never going to happen with GPinkerton sniping at other editors and labelling everything equally as "fantasy". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Once again we see this wholly false claim being made: "There are many here where they're not the current official flag of a nation or group, but they have been put forward by reputable and substantial groups as potential flags, maybe for some new state group or identified group" an utter fiction with not a bit of truth to it. None of the images on question has ever existed off-wiki; repeated and unsubstantiated claims to the contrary should be ignored. GPinkerton (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Andy, that is literally the argument I have been having in several DRs, that off-wiki presence (under certain circumstances) meets the threshold for scope. But how can we have that dicussion when GPinkerton is not the only user being disingenuous? Davey2010 continues to call these images "fake" even when they have been submitted to a publicly-held contest, deliberately conflating an honest suggestion submitted for consideration by a review body of some sort with making fake claims that it is somehow a real flag, two very different concepts. We have multiple users here who are not starting on an honest footing RE just what the intention of these images actually is. Fry1989 eh? 22:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
You don't have to agree with Davey, but at least he's not personally offensive with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley and Fry1989: Both of you are being disingenuous: there is no off-wiki presence for any of these fake images. You have both been challenged repeatedly to produce even a shred of evidence of any of these and you have spectacularly failed, and yet you still keep repeating this wholly wrong claim that they exist off-wiki. Stop it! It's wrong! The flags are Commons-only doodles and have never once been submitted anywhere. GPinkerton (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
No I'm not. There is a huge difference between someone creating their own flag with the express intent of submitting it for consideration in a contest and someone creating their own flag and prancing it around claiming it is somehow in real use without any connection to anyone/anything other than themselves. The former cannot be a "fake" and cannot be a "fantasy", it has a legitimate purpose. Without starting on that position of truth, a debate on what level of progress such a submission has to reach to be considered within scope for hosting on Commons cannot take place. Fry1989 eh? 00:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
No-one (or certainly not I) has suggesting deleting any images that have been submitted anywhere. Mention of this or that contest is quite irrelevant and I wish you'd stop bringing it up; you have been told enough times by enough different people: the flags that have been restored have nothing to do with any contest whatsoever. GPinkerton (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest you re-read Davey's comment which I linked. Fry1989 eh? 20:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
That's a hypothetical; none of these images so qualify. Despite the claims you made that have led to this situation, none of the now restored images were so used. Do you admit this now? GPinkerton (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Clearly a retaliatory filing

This is clearly a retaliatory filing in reaction to the general consensus that Yann acted out of process in the following threads:

Yann has failed to engage substantively on the question despite queries and criticism from many quarters. Now Yann tries to divert attention to (one of) his critics. GPinkerton (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

User:めそめそうさこ

Although receiving copyvio warning, this user doesn't stop posting copyvio photos. --Netora (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week. Uploads are deleted, except the last, which is nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User placing spam links in source field and edit comments

I've never used this board, but here's an obvious link spammer. They had placed the text Best gold stocks to buy as the source for one image.Possibly (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

and then there's this... Possibly (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Blocked and nuked Rycokeqes. Webraizer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) may be related - I deleted several related but not explicitly spammy uploads. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Webraizer was the user who created the article the spam-tagged images were used in en en.wiki. Possibly (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Messenger

Molim da mi promijenite kod za prijavu zaboravila sam lozinku — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 93.143.187.183 (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Please change my login code I forgot my password
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Pozdrav i dobrodošli. Molimo pročitajte mw:Manual:Resetting passwords i COM:SIGN.
Hi, and welcome. Please read mw:Manual:Resetting passwords and COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Senna senna senna

All uploads by User:Senna senna senna are obviously copyvios. See watermark here. Stepro (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done All deleted. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Prime Ragnarok

Could someone block Prime Ragnarok ( local | logs | global )? (and delete their uploads) This is clearly an account created only to vandalize. They will soon be blocked on pt.WP (their home WP) and here they only uploaded COM:OOS, COM:COPYVIO, etc.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done no need to block at this point. Nevertheless, user got warned about copyvios. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Jackhelps

Jackhelps (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) User already uploaded multiple copyvios, last warning was given on 2. september. Yesterday, he uploaded another copyvio and left disruptive comment when confronted. A09090091 (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth8871, massive spammer

@Elizabeth8871: keeps adding the sentence "apparently faith leads to this real time" on every page he/she edits or other spams since 28 October. See Special:Contributions/Elizabeth8871. Veverve (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed as NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Continues copyvios

This Crazymeanin (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) continue copyvio image upload. --~AntanO4task (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user and deleted last remaining upload. Taivo (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

User:岡野竜治

Even though receiving copyvio warning, this user doesn't stop posting copyvio photos. --Netora (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week. Now I'll delete some uploads. Taivo (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Archives cantonales jurassiennes (ArCJ)

Archives cantonales jurassiennes (ArCJ) (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) All ~600 uploads are copyvios, 2 RfD in 2 days, user does not stop uploading even after being told to stop. Maybe another-language message about copyvios?. A09090091 (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I have issued a warning, will look through uploads now and delete if it is obvious copyvio rubin16 (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
This account seems to be a genuine GLAM. We should take care to explain copyright, not scare them away. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

V4 International

A corporate account name, and is spamming, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for SPAMMING --Ruthven (msg) 19:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Ohibbaabbbb

Posting copyvio photos via screenshot photo by smartphone. Although receiving copyvio warning in his native language, this user doesn't stop posting such copyvio photos. --Netora (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


I have warned him twice on the talk page. However, this user will not stop uploading without respect to copyright. A block on this user is required.

--Krorokeroro (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 1 week. clpo13(talk) 17:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

On Japanese Wikipedia, Ohibbaabbbb is blocked as long-term abuse sock puppet. I think Ohibbaabbbb needs to be blocked further so as not to bother Wikimedia Commons.--Krorokeroro (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Ohibbaabbbb was globally locked on October 29, 2021.--Krorokeroro (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

User making thousands of pointless edits

User:NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh - looks to be making thousands of edits like this, as well as adding and removing files to Category:Null edits. I'd normally wait to have a conversation with someone on their user page, but the scale of disruption merits bringing up here ASAP. — Rhododendrites talk |  11:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

They've stopped a couple minutes ago, but their response at their user talk page doesn't seem to explain anything. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I was typing an explanation here (see below) when you noticed me. Unnamed UserName me 11:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
There were hundreds of emptied category redirects in Category:Non-empty category redirects, which make it hard to manage. I performed null edits so that they won't get stuck for days in the job queue. I apologize for the rest. Unnamed UserName me 11:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't null edits on the category pages have sufficed? There is also w:user:Frietjes/masspurge.js. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
There is? Thanks for recommending. Unnamed UserName me 12:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Just tested it with an empty category redirect categorised as non-empty; indeed a null edit on the category page is all that's needed to update the categorisation, since it is simply done through the {{Category redirect}} template on the category. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
FYI @NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: a null edit need not add a space in the section header or elsewhere (which will cause there to be an edit listed in the logs). Instead, you can just open the editor and click "Publish changes" without making any changes; this is enough to update the categories and backlinks. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
More reliable, IMHE, to add whitespace to the end of the description (this triggers the update flags, but is stripped out on saving and doesn't cause a loggable change). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, all of you. Best, Unnamed UserName me 06:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Adhurim Jakupi

Adhurim Jakupi (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) Multiple copyvios, some were recreated. Maybe mother language copyright explanation? A09090091 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. No administrator speaks here Albanian, so no warning in native language can be issued. I warned him not to upload more copyvios, but even the template has no Albanian version. You can post Google translation on his user talkpage if you like, but as the photos had second description in English, probably he understands some English. In addition, most people of Kosovo understand Serbocroatian language. I deleted all his uploads, except one, which is nominated for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks. Maybe just a comment to "In addition, most people of Kosovo understand Serbocroatian language." For Serbia, Kosovo is still their land and its independence is really disputable. I don't think it is safe to contact them in Serbocroatian language, I think in this case GT is better and more neutral. A09090091 (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Цветікова

Цветікова (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Professional portraits with high end equipement from various brands (Sony, Nikon, Canon). Do we need a confirmation of the license via COM:VRT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yann (talk • contribs) 15:42, 28 October 2021‎ (UTC)

 Comment I accept Nikon 610 as own camera, but you can create a regular bulk deletion request for other files, if you like. Taivo (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Yann (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Mx. Clarks

A lot of useless edits. I deleted many talk pages with links to non-existent Wikipedia projects. I didn't delete talk pages when the project exists, and is the same as the page on Commons (e.g. Talk:Sindh). Is this useful? Also removing deletion warning, i.e. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mx. Clarks. Yann (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

User has been replacing File:Flag of Pakistan.svg with File:Pākistani National flag.png despite being told to get consensus before replacing them. Seee User talk:Mx. Clarks#Pakistan flag --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Account now globally locked. Most edits deleted or reverted. Yann (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Zoouenozoo

Posting copyvio photos via screenshot photo by smartphone. Although receiving copyvio warning, this user doesn't stop posting such copyvio photos.

In addition, this user may be a sock puppet of User:Ohibbaabbbb blocked recently. These user's files have some common points: 1. captured by same phone(iPhone 7), 2. similar rules of file-naming and description. --Netora (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user indefinitely and deleted most of his/her uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 10:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This user uploaded File:Ooishiakiiiko.jpg. That is the re-creation of File:Oisshiakiko.jpg uploaded by Zoouenozoo. This user may also be a sock puppet of User:Ohibbaabbbb.--Netora (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done as well. Taivo (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

100 Do

Tags files as {{PD-Vietnam}} but provides no source to support the claim. Suspected sockpuppet of Lý Ngọc Đạt (talk · contribs). See their talk page and this edit. Unnamed UserName me 12:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: 100 Do uploaded File:Hồ Chí Minh.jpg, and Lý Ngọc Đạt inserted it into the article on vi.wiki. Unnamed UserName me 12:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Confirmed that 100 Do = Lee Gok Da, BTW. Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Redia2021

Persistently uploaded promotional images despite warnings. 182.1.104.198 14:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Diasporahh – COM:CIVIL and UCoC violations from a globally locked sockpuppet

Diasporahh again and again the same globally locked sockpuppets [Savary34] aka [Caux9] see here : [User contributions for Caux9] and [User contributions for Savary34] is engaged again in an inappropriate and disruptive behavior on File talk:Portrait posthume de Étienne de Perier.jpg. Furthermore this user repeatedly violates the UCoC and COM:CIVIL: with his usual insulting and aggressive language, see here [5] --Belyny (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Goo Flags Wiki

Goo Flags Wiki (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has uploaded dozens of images in a short time consisting of dubious descriptions, copyright violations, and apparent troll or personal joke images. Several are already individually nominated for deletion; probably they should all be. Could someone check user if this is a sock of a previous vandal? I have blocked them for 1 week at present to stop the inappropriate uploads pending more info. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I deleted several copyvios, improperly licensed and out-of-scope files. Taivo (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Vanderpumpstan

A few weeks ago, this user uploaded around a dozen images which were blatant copyright vios, and which have now been deleted. I left them a brief notice on their talk page. Recently they've started uploading more copyright violations, at least one of which is a reupload of a file that they previously uploaded and had deleted for copyvio. Seems there's a lack of understanding here or unwillingness to adjust their behaviour. Colin M (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vanderpumpstan: Please refrain from uploading non-free files by adding a Creative Commons rationale that is not present at the source page of the photograph. Doing so will get your account blocked. As a rule of thumb, any recent image you find on the internet or in a printed magazine is copyrighted and non-free. Those may not be uploaded here unless the copyright holder (not you) has granted a free licence before. De728631 (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. I warned Stan. At moment nothing else is needed. Taivo (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Wikishitposting

See shitposting on Wikipedia and "in the dictionary".

This user breaks Commons:Username policy:

  1. Disruptive usernames, this includes outright trolling or personal attacks, or otherwise clearly disruptive intentions.
  2. Offensive usernames that make harmonious editing difficult or impossible.

User page says "Hello there, we're the team behind the Facebook page Wikishitposting." Looks like using Commons to promote a personal website. -- Qpy (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

COM:UPOLICY: Usernames that are inappropriate for editing on Wikimedia Commons may be blocked. These names include attempts to advertise, mislead, or disrupt. -- Qpy (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked the user indefinitely due to improper username, but did not delete anything. Taivo (talk) 08:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Upload nearly identical files with different name, false claim to be own work, write undescriptive descriptions and does seem to be a sockpuppeteer. Unnamed UserName me 01:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked them indefinitely and tagged them. Now I will delete some uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo: And this:

Txkk (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Thanks. I mass deleted all uploads. Taivo (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo: I found another one:

Unnamed UserName me 17:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo: Some more:

Unnamed UserName me 18:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo: I found another one:

Txkk (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo: You should mass delete all uploaded by all sockpuppets, and block these sockpuppets. Txkk (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

These accounts are sockpuppets of User:Jordanene7 (see m:Special:CentralAuth/Ngozikalu7435), so we can report these sockpuppets on Meta. Txkk (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. The sockpuppets are globally locked. I tagged them and deleted speedily some copyvios. Taivo (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

JamesKonrad posting several copyrighted images

JamesKonrad has uploaded several copyrighted images and one image without evidence of permission. Now, at least some of these images were uploaded in September, so there's a possibility I could be wrong, but there should be an investigation anyways. --I dream of horses (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about copyvios here, more about the promotional aspect of their earlier images. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

As I already explained, all the images are in the posession of Mr.Boris Martinovich,who gave me his consent to use them. I am sure Mr.Martinovich wrote an email to you giving you the consent to publish these images. I would like to know what are the next steps I should do to resubmit the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 109.93.191.170 (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Andy Dingely: I am not sure what you mean by promotional aspects of previous images.... — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 109.93.191.170 (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

JamesKonrad (talk · contribs) File:International Voice Competition Boris Martinovich.jpg is clearly promotional and way outside COM:SCOPE. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. I warned James and deleted all his uploads. Taivo (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Ashikul Hasan

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Per checkuser investigation, Singerashikbd is technically unrelated and it has no edits in Commons, neither living nor dead. Singerashik is warned, his both uploads are deleted. In my opinion that's enough. Taivo (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: What did Edit Summary "{{done}}" really mean in this edit?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, that was my mistake. I wanted to push "not done". And then I hoped, that nobody notices. You see, here is no way to change edit summaries afterwards. Taivo (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Karirad and Karirad2

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Karirad2 indefinitely as sockpuppet, but did not block master. I deleted all uploads of both. Taivo (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Please restore files deleted by User:Jameslwoodward in my revision deletion request

As an administrator myself on another Wikimedia project, I respect every minute of a Commons admin. However, the closure Jameslwoodward provided for this DR – Commons:Deletion requests/First versions of files uploaded by User:Gikü is, to put it mildly, beyond nonconstructive. If the request cannot be fulfilled because of lack of admin time & attention, I can understand that and find means to address the problem myself. But bluntly deleting the entire files is not what I intended and absolutely not in the project's interest. I have explained more about why the decision was bad, here (permalink).

My request is just to undelete the files. If the revision deletion request is not going to be fulfilled, please let me know, I will work on a workaround myself. Whether Jameslwoodward's decision was sound is for you to decide. Thanks. Gikü (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the subject files. It seemed to me a great deal easier overall for the files to be deleted and then Gikü could reload them with the EXIF the way he liked. Doing a REVDEL on sixty files will take an Admin an hour or so, since they have to be loaded one at a time. However, Gikü tells me (on my talk page) that he does not keep copies of uploads. I apologize for assuming that since storage is essentially free these days (perhaps one US penny for these files), that uploaders would save copies of their uploads. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Thank you, there are 7 more red links. Gikü (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Jameslwoodward for undeleting. Thank you Huntster for spending a total of 20 minutes in revdel-ing the files, I appreciate your effort and the fact you've lent some time from your schedule to perform the best possible closure of the initial request. I consider this topic closed. Gikü (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Jordanene7

See #Sockpuppets. CUs may be needed to perform a quick check. Unnamed UserName me 22:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Correcteur21/Belyny

Hello,
There was an editing war with user Belyny on File talk:Portrait posthume de Étienne de Perier.jpg.
This user, known as Correcteur21 since 2016, is the author of numerous sockpuppets blocked all over the French Wikipedia, and Wikidata (see here, an admin page is even dedicated to him/her - he is very active and keeps attacking pages especially related to the de Perier family topic - we don't know why).
He operates with VPNs, but it's always the same thing:
- Massive modification (rewriting of the article), without discussion, even if it means engaging in an editing war and blocking on his version, if a contributor disagrees (this attitude does not prevent some of his modifications from being legitimate);
- A partial use of sources, a sometimes biased reading; even blatant misappropriation of sources to impose one's point of view and/or to embarrass one's opponent;
- A peremptory and dogmatic attitude, apparently courteous, on the DPs of an article or on the DP of a contributor;
- Use of a large number of false names (...)
The French administrators have already identified Belyny as a sockpuppet of Correcteur21, as you can see on the page the French administrators have created in his honour (at the bottom of the page in question)...

I thank you in advance for what you can do to regulate the situation of this cheat.
Yours sincerely,--Diasporahh (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to what falsely claims Diasporahh, I was never a user of French Wikipedia. I am only a user of Eng Wikpedia and I was never blocked on French or English Wikipedia. I was the one who asks for [Investigations sockpuppets Savary34 and Caux9] which has shown that this user is a sockpuppet using a lot of alias for his inappropriate and disruptive behavior on French and English Wikipedia as Diasporahh (the same guy obviously) does now on Commons : see: [User contributions for Caux9] and [User contributions for Savary34] !!! --Belyny (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Lies, as usual. It is proven by fr administrators that Belyny = sockpuppets of Correcteur21 and many other accounts (see the extreme end of this page, section "Famille de Perier+ art. connexes"). --Diasporahh (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I strongly advise Diasporahh before continuing his defamatory remarks (reason to be blocked) to indicate precisely:

  • The link that indicate that I am a user of French Wikipedia
  • The link that idicate that I am blocked on French Wikipedia or English Wikipedia or another wiki
  • The sockpuppet investigation that concludes to a connection between me and another user (not a link to a page where a French guy put my name in a column "similarity"(?) without any proof or evidence of that). I notice that in another column the same Guy notices that Savary34 and Caux9 are blocked sockpuppets (after sockpuppet investigation in this case)... --Belyny (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Belyny/Correcteur21 does not lose its good habits.
As shown above, Belyny has been proven to be a sockpuppet of Correcteur21 (which acts crosswiki, as we can see on the same page). It is stated on the page dedicated to him that lying is one of his usual intimidation techniques.
Moreover, contrary to the lies that have been told, the usual scope of this contributor is fr Wikipedia :
- Belyny inadvertently communicates Google searches in French (see here, his/her phrase "A lot of secondary sources for Etienne Perier" leads to searches in French if you click on it : "Étienne Perier" "Gouverneur" in the search bar).
- Belyny takes and modifies all the (mostly false) information that was communicated - in French only - during a very long debate on the discussion page "Famille de Perier" (the governor's family that Belyny/Correcteur21 keeps attacking). For example, he attacks this surviving family, calling it false nobility in France, here - this statement does not appear on the discussion page but was already suggested only by DepCher another sockpuppet of Correcteur21 on the fr Wikipedia.
In conclusion, this contributor of bad faith - you have to call a spade a spade - and blocked from all Wikipedia has no place on this site.
Thanks in advance to the moderation team. Sure, I will not respond to this person again but he should be prevented from operating on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons has it has been done on fr Wiki.
Yours sincerely,
--Diasporahh (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

As expected Diasporahh (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) was unable to give any link to a RCU to support his accusations.
The inappropriate and disruptive behavior of Diasporahh on File talk:Portrait posthume de Étienne de Perier.jpg demonstrates without any doubt that Diasporahh is a new alias of the globaly sockpuppet Caux9 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) aka Savary34 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) and should be blocked for that. --Belyny (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Belyny: Please make your case at m:srg#Global lock for Diasporahh.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

TaurusEmerald

This guy sometimes still fails to categorize images like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and more. Has been notified once, but seems he ignored it. After that, User:Tdorante10 often categorized images uploaded by TaurusEmerald. We have similar cases of failure to categorize images like User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao, User:Matlin. If this countinues, further administrative action may be required. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we are not the same person. I just have an incessant need to categorize images, but I would prefer if they were categorized before hand as well. Tdorante10 (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your work. Why I put this to here is because fail to categorize images/poorly categorize images created more workload to other users, which is not a good phenomenon. We already have a lot of images remained uncategorized at Category:Media needing categories, we should keep that list a little as possible. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User:MedicinaUAChV

Uploading edited pictures of Spanish politicians that violate copyright laws and are also insulting the persons portrayed (Nazi flags, penis drawings). -- Discostu (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. No activity after Túrelio warned him/her. I'll delete the last remaining upload as copyvio. Taivo (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Rename Picture

Would it be possible to follow this rename request? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MEDIAFIX_01026.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardfabi (talk • contribs) 21:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Gruß, Achim55 (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Itsyouguru

Username violates COM:IU, uploaded copyrighted material from the website of the same name. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. User is successfully renamed, no block is needed. Taivo (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Yep,saw that. Their remarks at en.wp seem to indicate they aren't quite getting the copyvio thing (seemingly they think if they just cropped the copyright notices out of the image it would be ok) but they haven't actually uploaded anything else so there's probably nothing further to do here for now. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyvios from user Tang223

Hello. I think all pics from user:Tang223 about Iba Tong are in copyvio. Check Tang223 contributions and google search. Not personal works : some are offical pics, some are album covers here for example, some are logo here from facebook for example. Supertoff (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Hornstrandir1 habitual problematic categorization

Hornstrandir1 is a prolific creator of categories in the areas of geology and paleontology. However they have a habitual pattern of creating a myriad of redundant categories, major overcategorization and blatant miscategorizing images and categories. (eg Category:Mecoptera fossils in Category:Paleobiota (insects) of the Tranquille Formation. This is a habitual issue that is shown by the number of category for deletion notices and the amount of clean up work needed for North American geology pages such as Category:Allenby Formation, Category:Coldwater Beds, and all of the United States geology pages such as Category:Klondike Mountain Formation. Additionally they have been warned about this behavior several times already, and have been given one 3 day block already by A.Savin. The category structure in Category:Geologic formations of the United States is a prime example of the overcategorization and redundancy of categories.--Kevmin § 04:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I've notified the user for you. You're welcome. Regards --A.Savin 13:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Slothman533

This user continues to uploaded copyrighted images here and also at en.wp, and at least one was reuploaded after being deleted. —chaetodipus (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user and nominated his/her last remaining contribution for deletion as copyvio. Taivo (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Anggorn1

User has been blocked before for uploading unfree images. Most of the recent ones uploaded by the user continue this trend, All are obviously not owned by him as claimed. I tagged some of the most blatant ones for deletion, dubious about the rest. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Yann blocked the user for a year and nominated some uploads for deletion. I nominated one more upload for deletion. Taivo (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Lil.amaki

Hello,

I am contacting you regarding the user Lil.amaki. It seems like he uploaded a lot of copyrighted pictures of Eazy-E, like [6] where I found out it has the same name as the artcile in the deletion request. Here is her or his list of contributions: [7].

Could you please check the uploads of this user?

Best regards, --CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@CoffeeEngineer: I notified them for you. You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thank you ! --CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Engelberthumperdink

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

Я номинировал на удаление 4 трёхмерных изображения с источником с несвободной лицензией. (6, 7, 8, 9). Участник с нарушением правил об этичном поведении сообщил мне, что "Вы мне отвратительны". Я разъяснил, почему данные изображения не могут быть загружены на Викисклад и попросил удалить оскорбления во всех четырёх обсуждениях. Вместо этого он обвинил меня во лжи, продолжая нарушать правила об этичном поведении. Прошу принять меры и подвести итог в этих четырёх номинациях. ::: I nominated 4 three-dimensional source images with a proprietary license for deletion. (6, 7, 8, 9). A participant in violation of the rules on ethical behavior informed me that "You disgust me." I explained why these images could not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and asked him to remove the insults in all four discussions. Instead, he accused me of lying while continuing to violate the rules about ethical behavior. Please take action and summarize these four nominations. --NoFrost (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I notice at least two requirements not done by you: a) "Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first"; and b) "Notify the user(s) concerned". Given that, I don't see anything to be done here at this point. Regards --A.Savin 20:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • NoFrost I've undone your "personal attack" censoring because A) "You are disgusting to me" and "it's just a lie" aren't personal attacks - Sure the first example isn't nice but it's not worthy of censoring neither. I sense by Engleberts replies there's tension between these 2 and I sense we don't have a full picture of the issue here. –Davey2010Talk 20:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand what's going on. Are you the administrator? This user is currently blocked on Russian Wikipedia for 24 hours. But regardless of this, you allow yourself to take the templates off these insults? --NoFrost (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@ NoFrost: I see no attempts to resolve, but more of targeting Engelbert with several RfD's, trying to import your dispute with this user from Russian Wikipedia to Commons. But we surely don't need imported drama here. And no, there was no notification of this ANU. Threatening with ANU ≠ notification, you know. Regards --A.Savin 20:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@ A.Savin: I don't know. And I certainly don't understand English very well. I've worked here for a long time, but I haven't been subjected to such insults. In any case, your formalism surprises me. Perhaps I'll call the administrators I know from my removal requests here... help me please. I don't understand why I have to listen to insults because of bureaucracy. Túrelio, Taivo --NoFrost (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
And in general - quite understandably in my request the main request is to summarize my nominations for deletion. Obviously, a meaningful summary is my request. This will immediately determine who is right and who is wrong in the argument. And I will no longer listen to insults about how the nomination is unfounded, or accept that it is. I've worked here for several years and I've never been wrong yet. Well, if I've been wrong now, it happens. Sum it up for me - it'll be clear right away. --NoFrost (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
As stated in edit summaries NoFrost I dont believe these are personal attacks - If an admin disagrees they're more than welcome to redact accordingly. IMHO you're making a mountain of a molehill here. –Davey2010Talk 21:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Gm. --NoFrost (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
What's "Gm" supposed to mean?.... –Davey2010Talk 22:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
it means coughing in Russian. This is written here so the admins can see that I did not engage in a war of edits, after your incorrect edits that I saw. --NoFrost (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Regardless the pending RfD's, there is nothing to be done here on COM:ANU I think. --A.Savin 22:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion NoFrost tries to bring here conflicts from other projects. See ru:Арбитраж:NoFrost. I closed the 4 DRs and that's all. Please be very careful with sanctions! Taivo (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Ravidhanyaadi

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. No edits after you warned the user. Actually the user did not fabricate Flickr review, but restored the review, which the user himself (maybe erroneously) earlier removed. In my opinion warnings are enough. Taivo (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

POV editwarring by Orijentolog

Orijentolog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Clear-cut POV ethnic edit warring in progress, without hint of explanation or discussion. [8], [9], [10], [11]. I suspect a block and a reversion and protection of the page is necessary to prevent further disruption. GPinkerton (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't lie please, I already explained that map is highly incorrect and contrary to all realistic maps, so it can not be mixed in the same categories. You removed tag that map is disputed, you started edit warring, and here you ask for blocking an active editor who has made >500,000 contributions to Wikimedia and has never been blocked here during 10 years of service. I don't ask for blocking you, just to be a bit more serious about cartography and categorization. --Orijentolog (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
No lies: you have been removing perfectly valid categories repeatedly, without rhyme or reason. This is disruptive. If you can't appreciate that, then that is evidence of further problems beyond the present case of POV-pushing and edit warring across multiple files that you are engaged in. Your opinion on any map does not trump others; you are not the fount of all knowledge. Do kindly stop your edit warring. GPinkerton (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Twisting the roles. I'm not the one who removed tag while consensus isn't reached, or one who nominate whole discussion for deletion. Not to mention persistent insults like "ethnic POV", "silly", "vandal", "abuser", etc. --Orijentolog (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not an insult but an accurate summation of the chronic behavioural issue at hand. GPinkerton (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@De728631: Please also protect File:1946 Kurdistan et groupements Kurdes isolés.jpg where the same abuse (with same motives) continues. GPinkerton (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@GPinkerton and Orijentolog: I reverted it to a status before the edit warring but protection should not be necessary now that the underlying issue has been addressed here. Until this discussion has been settled, please refrain from editing any files and pages concerning Kurdistan or the history of Kurds in general except for the admin boards where necessary. I see a lot of heated debates and accusation from both sides, so this message goes to both of you. De728631 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@De728631: sure, but if possible I would like that tag {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} be restored, because consensus isn't reached. Other party want both tag and discussion to be removed, and that shows enough. I have no problem that third party decide. Regarding "refraining from editing any files and pages concerning Kurdistan or the history of Kurds in general," that's partly possible because currently I'm categorizing and dating some subjects in that region, but no worry, it concerns only art & architectural history (like [14]). That's why I'm here. --Orijentolog (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
That tag is appropriate for map files that are inaccurate. The files you have been vandalizing are unquestionably accurate copies of the physical maps they claim to represent and need no such tagging. A "dispute" requires disputants and a locus for dispute. All we have here is a historically important map labelled "Kurdistan" and described as such by multiple reliable sources (available on asking), on the one hand, and on the other hand we have an editor claiming that such maps do not belong in categories relating to Kurdistan. This tendentious and indefensible (not to mention bizarre an inexplicable) line of vandalism, reinforced by edit warring, does not constitute abuse so much as (either) incompetence and (/or) wilful disregard for reality. GPinkerton (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Regarding their "accuracy" I explained here, and I let someone else to elaborate are maps correct, and should be tagged or not. --Orijentolog (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Orijentolog's absurdist declaration on File talk:1946 Kurdistan et groupements Kurdes isolés.jpg proves the need for administrative action against this abuser and proven recidivist sockmaster and ethnic POV-pusher. There, the abuser tries to justify their vandalism of stripping relevant categories, impeding category navigation and generally disrupting the project. Regarding the categories in which File:1946 Kurdistan et groupements Kurdes isolés.jpg should be categorized – which Orijentolog has sought to vandalize – the abuser claims: Thus it should include [sic] only relevant categories: 1946 in Egypt (date, place), Kurdish nationalism (ideology), which is nothing other than a declaration of intent to disrupt Commons with vandalism, a fact borne out by Orijentolog's prior, subsequent, and repeated actions, including edit warring to suit their preferred version (stripped of useful categories) and refusing to discuss after repeated warnings and requests. This vandalism on the part of Orijentolog seeks to remove the indisputably pertinent categories Category:Maps of Kurdistan (this file is a map of Kurdistan, and a famous one at that), Category:Kurdish inhabited regions and Category:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions (this file is map of the Kurdish inhabited regions and is explicitly labelled as such), and Category:Old maps of Kurdistan (this file is clearly an old map of Kurdistan, and is explicitly labelled as such and described as such by multiple reliable sources. Orijentalog's fatuous denials of these facts, and refusal to accept that they are in the wrong, has been nothing other than disruptive. Allowing this kind of behaviour to continue is – on the part of admins – tantamount to complicity in it. GPinkerton (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    I think another boomerang is needed here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
More explanations are left on file's talk page, clearly proves that GPinkerton got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. --Orijentolog (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
So once again Orijentolog is falsely claiming that the map does not show Kurdistan but some undefined other place, and bizarrely quotes from a book all about maps of Kurdistan to prove this strange counterfactual. GPinkerton (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • How is Orijentolog not facing a substantial block for this? It's obvious nationalistic POV pushing.
My history with GPinkerton in the past has hardly been one of agreement and their editing here is also against any policies we might have against simple bright-line edit-warring. Yet in this case they do seem to be basing their changes on objective fact, not POV, and I'd support their version. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: an obvious nationalistic POV pushing came from another side, as sources prove. If you still don't trust, try to insert GPinkerton's map into some Wikipedia article with description "Kurdistan" or "Kurdish inhabited regions." --Orijentolog (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Such a bizarre claim: see the way the map is used: @ w:fr:Kurdistan#Géographie. I still think Orijentolog does not understand what is meant by "Les frontières ethniques du Kurdistan sont indiquées par une zône de hachures d'autant plus mince que la délimitation est plus nette. Les autres zônes hachurées indiquent la position et l'étendre appoximative des groupements isolés" or ""Areas marked by hatchings are those about which information is indefinite" ... Funny how I am being blamed by the vandal for perceived shortcomings of a map made in the 1940s! GPinkerton (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
You put it there, with relatively proper description "Carte nationaliste de 1946" (1946 nationalist map). I'll repeat, try to put "Kurdistan" or "Kurdish inhabited regions" as a description. Analogically, maps of Greater Italy also illustrate political history and irredentist concepts, not Italian inhabited regions. --Orijentolog (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Please stop making this inept and irrelevant comparison and drop the stick: accept you are wrong and consensus is firmly (100%, so far) against your peculiar worldview being applied on Commons. GPinkerton (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Comparisons are very relevant and two are 100% identical, because both show outdated irredentist concepts from the same decade. --Orijentolog (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The category trees are quite different; there is no comparison, and even if there were the improper categories you tried to edit war in would still not apply. Please quit this tendentiousness. GPinkerton (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
My nationalistic POV pushing
Considering you exposed my true face here, I can't do anything but reveal you my nasty nationalistic POV pushing modus operandi:
  • Case 1: realistic? No. A concept of some political movement? No. Result: went to fantasy [16].
  • Case 2: realistic? No. A concept of some historic political movement? Yes. Result: went to 1946, Egypt & nationalism categories [17].
  • Case 3: realistic? No. A concept of some political movement? Yes. Result: group added [18].
  • Case 4: realistic? No. A concept of some political movement? Not even that. Result: went to fiction [19].
  • Case 5: realistic? No. A symbol of some marginal political movement? Yes. Result: group added [20].
  • Case 6: realistic? No. A concept of some political movement? Not even that. Result: went to fantasy maps [21].
  • Case 7: realistic? No. A concept of some political movement? Not even that. Result: went to fiction [22].
Now you have all black on white, a pure anti-Kurdish, anti-Armenian, anti-Azerbaijani, anti-Talish, anti-Arab, anti-Lurish and anti-Iranian nationalistic POV pushing. I admit every edit, and I would do the same one more time. There's probably more similar edits related to the Balkans, so you can add anti-Albanian, anti-Bosnian, anti-Croatian, anti-Serbian and anti-Turkish nationalistic POV pushing. In the matter of fact, I do have POV. I consider all those groups and every individual nationalism as laughable, as well as all those fictitious material (which can not illustrate even marginal political groups) as utter rubbish which should be deleted, considering it can not illustrate any encyclopedic article and do not have any educational value. Now you can freely fill a report for, as you said, a substantial block. Go ahead, make my day. --Orijentolog (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The flimsy self-exculpatory essay quoted above is even more bizarre than the user's prior behaviour: Orijentolog is begging for a block! GPinkerton (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to both, you really made me laugh tonight. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Can't wait that Andy Dingley elaborate how my edits and cleaning up cartography categories of irredentist self-made junk is "even more problematic." And regarding my "begging for a block": I'm active here more than 10 years and I've made over 170,000 contributions, including over 210,000 on Wikidata. I identified thousands of buildings and places, properly categorized them, even referenced them. That's what I do here. And during that massive work and long time, I never received a single block. Speaking of you, GPinkerton, only this year you got blocked on four different Wikimedia projects, including Commons as fifth, yesterday. We can see what was the topic in question (23 February 2021): Arbitration enforcement: GPinkerton is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee per remedy 2 of the Kurds and Kurdistan case. I don't see any behavioral difference here, just manipulating, trolling, accusing, insulting, disrupting, etc. --Orijentolog (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
You are still trying to justify your vandalism while at the same time advertising new instances of it which prove the disruption goes back years, and then claiming you'd do it all again! Extraordinary scenes! GPinkerton (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Long-term vandalism by Orijentolog, disregarding warnings, nationalistic POV-pushing

Here is yet more evidence of Orijentolog's persistent and incorrigible disruption:

Here FogueraC warned Orijentolog to desist from their favoured disruptive practice of vandalizing maps not to their liking by stripping all relevant categories and adding Category:Fantasy maps in their place, a quite improper category for real-world maps but apparently this is a favourite pass-time for Orijentolog. "Please, do not uncategorize disputed maps (1, 2)". To this warning Orijentolog, in character as the self-appointed arbiter of all truth, sought to justify their blatant vandalism by claiming "OK, but FYI all inaccurate maps have been excluded from Iran-related categories, because there's no meddling of fiction and reality".

Despite having agreed to stop this disruption, Orijentolog shows no sign of stopping, and just now Orijentalog has doubled down on their claims here, proudly displaying other episodes of their vandalism of exactly the same kind [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. It will be noted that all of these incidents reveal a pattern: Orijentolog has particular opinions about maps of Iran and its neighbours and, on Commons, maps must not be allowed to conflict with Orijentolog's criteria; if they do they are stripped of all distinguishing categories and miscategorized into Category:Fantasy maps (alongside Category:Maps of A Song of Ice and Fire‎ and Category:Maps of Middle-earth‎).

Furthermore, Orijentalog appears to be an apologist for the Iranian regime, having been promoting obvious falsehoods as facts: in the course of yet more tendentious Iran-related quibbling over maps, Orijentolog advanced the extraordinary claim that execution by stoning did not exist in Iran, whereas, as everyone knows, this particular barbarism has long been a popular blood sport among the apparatchiks of the Iranian state. Yet, astonishingly, Orijentolog managed to quote some manufactured propaganda that Orijentolog imagined proved that stoning did not exist in the Islamic state. Still more astoundingly, Orijenolog began to claim that the only reliable source for matters Iranian was the Iranian junta itself: "Since we're speaking about Iran and it's [sic] law, the most reliable sources are from Iran itself", repeatedly demanding that File:Stoning-in-law.svg be modified (it wasn't) to suit the denials of the theocrats so famously fond of stoning to death, by whom Orijentolog appears to have been persuaded that, after all, stoning to death is not a frequently practised for the mullahs' entertainment (it is). GPinkerton (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

That on its own would suggest an unfamiliarity with Wikimedia's usual standards for accuracy, sourcing and WP:SECONDARY sourcing. But when it is part of a long editing history that takes such a partisan line throughout, that's much more concerning. This is just deliberate POV pushing. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Laughable and outdated accusations. First of all, I made objections about law maps seven years ago, and I do stand behind them. Second, I'm an author of tens of Islamophobia-, Antisemitism-, Iranophobia-related articles, as well as 2300 Iran-related articles, so such topics are very familiar to me. Third, words like regime, junta, falsehoods, barbarism, mullahs' entertainment, etc speak only about you. A gentleman from Tehran can never be insulted by some cheap accusations and insults. That's the true difference between civilization and barbarism. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Advertising the extent of your POV-pushing does not excuse it. GPinkerton (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Orijentolog has been blocked for more than 36 years

It should be noted that Orijentolog has been blocked indefinitely on Croatian Wikipedia since 2013 (for chronic and repeated abusive behaviour). Orijentolog has been blocked indefinitely on Norwegian Wikipedia since 2010 (for chronic trolling and egregious nationalistic POV-pushing). Orijentolog has furthermore been blocked indefinitely on English Wikipedia since 2009 (for tendentious editing and rampant sockpuppetry). Orijentolog was blocked between 2010 and 2015 on Bosnian Wikipedia for personal attacks. Orijentalog has also been blocked for POV-pushing on English Wiktionary ([29]) and on Croatian Wiktionary ([30]). Orijentolog was blocked on Hungarian Wikipedia in 2010 and 2012 (for temper tantrums and personal attacks). In all and running concurrently, Orijentolog's behaviour across various Wikis has resulted in not less than 36 years' worth of blocks. Clearly this vandal, POV-pusher, and edit-warrior is a clear-cut case for a long or indefinite block. GPinkerton (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I haven't been blocked for more than 10 years, and I never been blocked here on Commons during 10 years. On the other hand, you have been blocked on four Wikimedia projects during only this year, including on Commons two days ago (as a fifth), and reasons for your blocks are mostly manipulations related Kurdish-related articles. Now freely continue with your insults (vandal, POV-pusher, and edit-warrior), like they change the truth. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
P.S. Unlike you, I don't hide admin's warnings on my talk page, like you did with A.Savin's. All of your accusations here can be considered only as baseless harassment. Nothing else. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The abuser's claim "I haven't been blocked for more than 10 years" is demonstrably false. Orijentolog (as I said) was blocked in 2013 (less than ten years ago) on Croatian Wikipedia and has been blocked there ever since. Orijentolog remains blocked indefinitely for tendentious editing, trolling, POV-pushing, edit-warring, personal attacks, sock-puppetry, and block evasion on English, Norwegian, and Croatian Wikipedias until the present day, meaning that their denials immediately above are not only false but deliberately misleading. GPinkerton (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Baseless accusations again. Just for the record, GPinkerton's cross-wiki harassment went so far that he's still asking a global lock for me, despite multiply users explained him there's no basis for it. --Orijentolog (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I have declined the global lock request. Stewards do not mediate in content disputes on projects.QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Comment No opinion on the contential disputes and no desire to read into them; just have to say that the behaviour of both users is problematic due to multiple editwars (one only need to look here at edits from 16 Nov), that's why I had warned both. However, the behaviour by GPinkerton turned even much more problematic, with continuing the editwar, 1 day block (and no, the fact that this was technically a self-revert does not change anything on the fact that this was precisely the same edit as the one GPinkerton previously editwarred for; so of course it is editwarring after a warning not to do so, and that's why Elcobbola confirmed the block), as well as grossly uncivil comments towards Orijentolog with wording such as "vandal", "abuser", "POV warrior" etc.pp. Now GPinkerton opened a further sub-thread where they are showing Orijentolog's blocks on other projects; but this looks to me clearly like throwing stones from a house of glass, because GPinkerton themselves seems to have a long history of (indef)blocks on numerous projects; including a full ban from English WP imposed by the Arbcom. So in short, this imported dispute definitely is timewasting and unwelcome here, and at the moment I have the impression that it is GPinkerton who is generating most drama (though of course edits by both should be watched more closely). Regards --A.Savin 18:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The chronology presented by the comment above is confused. In fact, it is Orijentolog who combined incivility with vandalism long before I noticed it: here their vandalism was justified with the falsified edit summary "Undo revision 607418573 by GPinkerton (talk) Persistent vandalism, removing tag.". They then edit warred to reinstate the same vandalism, again using the same faux-justification of "Undo revision 607417691 by GPinkerton (talk) Persistent vandalism, removing tags and relevant categories" (this is ironic in that it was in fact Orijentolog who was pursuing their long-term abusive habit of miscategorizing maps, as evidenced above), and again "Undo revision 607414326 by GPinkerton (talk) Vandalism". Even when I notified Orijentolog of this very discussion they made light of the seriousness of their abuse with the comment "Laughable". Orijentalog continued their abuse on the talk page "No lies please" (this is also ironic, given their barefaced lying in the comment above I haven't been blocked for more than 10 years - the user is currently indefinitely blocked on at least three projects and has been for more than a decade in more than one) and again, now promoting themselves as arbiter of all truth while being abusive at the same time "Your claims are laughable ... You know, some people use Commons and Wikipedia for promoting free knowledge, not archaic ideologies". Now Orijentolog is insulting not only me, but others in this discussion (here, mischaracterizing their long-term vandalism and POV-pushing as "cleaning up cartography categories of irredentist self-made junk" and as well as here purely trolling, a habit which is not new).
Indeed, Orijentolog is chronically uncivil and repeatedly boasts about their supposed invulnerability from the consequences of their vandalism, as well as about its extent and duration: "Your attempts to bring 12-year-old disputes from en.wiki and empty threats are laughable, I'm an editor with almost 500,000 contributions on all projects and I was never blocked on Commons" (August 2021) just as they are doing here "I'm active here more than 10 years and I've made over 170,000 contributions, including over 210,000 on Wikidata. I identified thousands of buildings and places, properly categorized them, even referenced them. That's what I do here. And during that massive work and long time, I never received a single block" (NB repeated falsehood that this cross-wiki abuser and known sockpuppeteer has never been blocked; this comment was made while no fewer than 3 active indefinite blocks across Wikimedia projects were in force against Orijentolog).
Orijentolog enjoys accusing their critics of "uncivilized insults" (and the same here), while themselves making angry declarations like "Your opinion or my opinion does not matter here, only facts" and this peculiar screed about victory in WWII and Caucasian ethnicities, as well as making barely-intelligible threats to canvass to promote their POV by gaming the system: "I'm not "wrong" because you can not prove it, you can only continue with baseless accusations and manipulations. You tried to promote racist charlatans and you're not even ashamed of it. FYI, I'm cooperating on Commons with several admins (Western Asian art topics) but still I did not invite any of them here, so if you think you'll manipulate one admin who hasn't deeper knowledge about this topic, in order to achieve your desirable results, you're very wrong". Only this year, Orijentolog has twice ([31], [32], [33]) been warned by Kaldari to desist from edit warring (both times without apparent effect and both times with the usual POV vandalism: [34], [35], [36], [37]; and [38], [39], [40]).
Finally, it is quite confusing in a section dedicated to discussion of Orijentolog's decades-long blocks, sock-puppetry, and other misbehaviour to see my ArbCom block last February wrongly described as "a long history of (indef)blocks on numerous projects" by A.Savin. Anyone who had looked into the matter (as A.Savin admits not to having done) will find that the blocks against me at Georgian Wikipedia and Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia are clear instances of administrator abuse on small Wikipedias from which I was removing a number of hoax files (since deleted). The inference by made by A.Savin - namely that my reversions and reports of Orijentolog's vandalism is somehow equivalent to the vandalism itself is quite mystifying and clearly misplaced. GPinkerton (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Every time when I engaged in edit warning this year (some 2-3 times) it was with users who were obvious abusers and who got blocked for sock puppetry and even globally [41][42]. As I explained to admins, it's a way of discouraging malicious users and saving admin's time. Accusing me, never-banned user who properly categorized (tens of?) thousands of Western Asian places, buildings and artworks, of "miscategorizing" and "vandalism" is indeed uncivilized. --Orijentolog (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
NB that Orijentolog (long blocked on numerous projects) is again peddling the grandiose and long-discredited claim that they have never been blocked "me, never-banned user"! I can (with more accuracy than can Orijentolog) say "Every time when I engaged in edit warning this year ... it was with users who were obvious abusers", since the only time I have edit warred is with this particular obvious abuser, renowned sockmaster, and noted POV-pusher, namely Orijentolog. Sadly, A.Savin chose to ignore my ANU report and instead chose to embolden Orijentolog by blocking me for reverting Orijentolog's vandalism (despite admitting later that A.Savin understood that such reverts are acceptable "I don't think it's problematic with obvious socks and vandals") and to allow the cross-wiki abuse by Orijentolog to continue unabated. GPinkerton (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Never-blocked means never-blocked, now dispute with Log/block tool. --Orijentolog (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
NB that since Orijentolog known sockpuppeteer, there is no guaranty that Orijentolog has not been blocked many times on Commons using different accounts, just as Orijentolog has been known to do on other projects, as I have earlier said. GPinkerton (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
True, there's no guaranty I'm not a serial killer either. Address Interpol. --Orijentolog (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
What is guarantied is that Orijentolog is blocked indefinitely and continues vandalism and POV-pushing across a range of projects on which the abuser is not blocked, including right here on Commons. GPinkerton (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Edelweiiss

Although receiving copyvio warning, this user doesn't stop posting copyvio photos.--Netora (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:はいエビマヨです

Although receiving copyvio warning, this user doesn't stop posting copyvio photos.--Netora (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week. All uploads are deleted by others. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

C.Mamedov09

New user C.Mamedov09 is making really bad (no doubt in good-faith) edits, using the Android app (so I'm not sure that a talk page message will reach them); they're doing it as fast as I can revert them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped editing after your message, thus we can leave it as is until further notice. Regards --A.Savin 14:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Mahaveer Indra

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for 3 months and deleted something. Taivo (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done thanks to Taivo!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

U3202854

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked U for a week. All uploads are deleted by others. Taivo (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

1Rames3

1Rames3 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Can someone, preferably able to communicate in French, take a look at 1Rames3's contributions? User has demanded deletion of photos which they were not the uploader of, with message "Photo privée prise dans un lieu privé ; sans autorisation. Le propriétaire ne peut pas l'effacer." ("Private photo taken in a private location; without authorization. The owner cannot delete it.") No further explanation has been offered. Most of the photos so nominated had been kept in previous deletion requests. User relists, even while deletion requests are still open, removes info and categories for images, and most recently after being told repeatedly to stop removing categories has changed the category to "blacklist". My inclination is to revert and block, but I'd rather have input from someone else first, with luck perhaps communicate with the user. Also, perhaps check if user seems connected to previous editors of these files, some of whom are blocked. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Infrogmation: for the last bit, if you have evidence please open a RFCU.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@Infrogmation: Why haven't you tried to talk to this user? Not even to inform him/her that this discussion is taken place (which is mandatory)? Regards, Yann (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, notice given on talk page. I'd previously been trying to communicate with user via replies to their deletion requests and edits. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I closed the DRs, which were not based on any policy (recreation of DRs without a new reason), I deleted the "Blacklist" category, and I added one more warning. There is indeed suspicion of sockpuppetry, as these files were already nominated by other accounts or IPs for the same dubious reason. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Readding the same category after warning, so blocked for 3 days. Yann (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • IMHO these DRs are complete nonsense. We are not responsible for people posting auctions about places they don't own: File:Photo trouvé sur internet.jpg (BTW this is also nonsense: it is mentioned that it is a place in Belgium, while it is really in south-east of France). There is nothing in French law which prohibits taking and publishing images of old buildings, regardless who owns them. For all details, see fr:Discussion:Donjon du temple, including links to judgement of the Cour de Cassation (i.e. equivalent to Supreme Court), which expressly authorizes such pictures. I have very little patience with people who invent rules to suit them. IIRC we already have had this discussion long ago. So I suggest a long-term block, as per NOTHERE, sockpupettry, etc., and protection of the files. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd hope to see some response first, to try and clear this up. In particular, are they ThomThom888, or are they some past bitter enemy of them. But then indefs, protection and trying to limit and ignore it would seem a valid response. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • So this is a "I want to revoke my licences, and I will give false reasons to obscure why"?
In which case we should do largely nothing for the moment, and hope that @Michel421: see the ping from Commons on the DR page. I think he's probably the expert here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It is not even a case of "I want to revoke my licences", as these images were uploaded by different people. They want these images deleted because "they infringe on my privacy". I would say if they don't want images of their castle on the Internet, buy a small villa instead... Yann (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Other related DRs:

These last 2 should not actually be deleted: these maps are old (Napoléon, cf. [43]), and clearly out of copyright. The French administration is notorious for claiming a copyright on about everything. Yann (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I blocked Allony (talk · contribs) as an obvious sock. Yann (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I also added a message on the Bistro (French VP), just in case. Yann (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Thom99thom99thom99 (talk · contribs) was quacking too. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Blocked See also checkuser request on French Wikipedia , fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Thomthom888. I wrote a complete explaination in French to this user's talk page. Hopefully, that may help. If it doesn't, I don't see any other solution than blocking. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppets confirmed on French Wikipedia:

I blocked and tagged all existing accounts above. Yann (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
The obvious targets need protection and a big rollback on all edits. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
These need protection as well. The socks won't stop. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done I finally blocked this account for abusing multiple accounts. We can close this thread. Yann (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Cataleya Elsa Belle

This user uploaded File:Yamazaki Kento.jpg which has already been removed because of copyvio. In jawp, User:Pooja Subhiksha who already blocked in commons, used this file in 山﨑賢人 timely. This user may be a sockpuppet of User:Pooja Subhiksha.--Netora (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I protected the file name, so any single-purpose accounts should lose interest in it. Please re-report if the user uploads other copyvios under different file names. De728631 (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked the user indefinitely as sockpuppet. Taivo (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

user:Aaitarak

Aaitarak (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
Copyright violation after final warning —MdsShakil (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all pictures deleted, or requested for deletion. Yann (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Radizero - spamming and disruptive editing

Radizero (talk · contribs)

Could someone block this account please? Their entire contributions consist of bizarre spam and vandalism where this person is making nonsense claims that they are the creator of bitcoin and posting their email address and contact details asking people to email them to receive cryptocurrency. They have repeatedly vandalised Category:Satoshi Nakamoto with incomprehensible word salad, and they have written the same kind of nonsense on their user page. Their uploads consist of a picture of their laptop which they were attempting to sell for billions of dollars claiming it contained/controlled bitcoin and a selfie which they claimed to be a picture of Satoshi Nakamoto. There are zero productive contributions from this account, it very obviously is just a kid screwing around pretending to have invented bitcoin. 192.76.8.91 20:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done They haven't edited on other wikis for a month; if they return to them, a global lock can be requested. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: They're back again, and they've just recreated a user page full of nonsense on meta. would it be possible for you to request a global lock? I can't do it as an IP editor. 192.76.8.75 09:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome. Logging in is required before uploading here or reporting via m:srg, please do that. There are also many other reasons to create an account and log in.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

01abhimanyu1994

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block, spam is deleted. Taivo (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

User:HarrisDerkins22

User:HarrisDerkins22 has been adding what I would consider overly sexualized descriptions to images of art that, admittedly, has an erotic aspect. I have reverted the ones I have found on my own photos. Ditto for a very similar edit from User:‎2401:4900:3148:3000:f040:78d2:ccd5:fa98. Someone may want to look into this; I don't have time right now. - Jmabel ! talk 16:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

And he's not leaving it alone. This time as User:27.131.209.70, but obviously the same person. I've reverted this edit. I think these edits amount to vandalism, but I'm not single-handedly addressing it as such without some sort of consensus. As I said, the image admittedly has an erotic aspect, but I think his choice of caption is unnecessarily pornographic. - Jmabel ! talk 04:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Similarly. - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned Harris and blocked two IP-s. Taivo (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Marium Alberto

Hi, Massive violations of COM:OVERWRITE. I don't have the time to check them all now. Yann (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I blocked him for a week for edit warring after warnings. Now we have some time for checking his edits. Taivo (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Abdullah_h1

Hi, I blocked this account indef. for copyright violations (third block). Very little useful edits, but potential violations of COM:OVERWRITE, which should be checked (either as Abdullah_h1 or as Wil13, the previous account name). Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Roadsover9000 (talk · contribs)

Another Jermboy27 (talk · contribs) sock, per the duck test. Also please delete their uploads (excluding File:Znak IIA – 19 (1968).svg which is sourced). Fry1989 eh? 16:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you please just undelete the sourced one? Fry1989 eh? 18:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done OOPS. Yann (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Mrdude22

Mrdude22 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

I have tagged a number of files as copyright violations, and would suspect nearly all are. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned. All files deleted, or nominated for deletion. Yann (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Hazim Kamaledin

I suspect that all of the images uploaded by User:Hazim Kamaledin are protected by copyright. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Magnolia677 Please speedy-tag their images but most importantly please warn them before coming here. I've done both for you this time but in future please do it yourself. –Davey2010Talk 20:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 Not done. No edits after Davey warned Hazim. Thanks for that! All contributions are now deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Punkumax

Although receiving copyvio warning, this user doesn't stop posting copyvio photos.--Netora (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This photo is authorized from development vendor Punkumax (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Indeffed for spam. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Jose francisco panera, Francisco Panera, and Jose Maria Arriolabengoa

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

User:HexaDDecimal

Uploading copyright violations after last warning. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 1 month, uploads nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Problem with User:Ruthven and User:Elcobbola

Hello! I want to open something like an arbitration with two admins, wich may be unusual for this page. But since Commons has no arbitration process I use this page. The 2 admins in question are User:Ruthven and User:Elcobbola. The case is as follows:

At the end of last year I opened a DR on a file because of errors in what it tries to depict, low quality and better alternatives available. Nothing happened until 10 month later Elcobbola closed the DR, keeping the file because it was in use in 2 projects and advising me to discuss the matter in languages I don't speak. Revisiting the file I recognised that the data in the unsourced map were taken from Open Street Map and there were some additional data (hill shading) not available at OSM, thus having originated in another not diclosed source. As not even the licence matched (still does not) to OSM, I choose to request a deletion via copyvio. This was rejected by Ruthven without explanation on the subject just because of the former DR and when I reinserted the copyvio I got blocked by Ruthven for 1 month.

After that Ruthven went to a different map about Georgia that I recently had reverted to the version backed by the given sources after a Georgian Nationalist had changed it back to a erroneous older version that suited his beliefs better. Despite me having given an explanation for every revert, Ruthven did not explain anything. On my talk page he also did not explain the revert other than with his bad faith. In the enduing discussions, also at Elcobbolas and Ruthvens talk page, mostly due to intervention by User:NordNordWest, I had to read a number of insults, defamations and threats especially by Ruthven. Both Ruthven and Elcobbola have acknowledged that the file #1 had copyright issues, but did nothing further regarding the issue. At the end I was unblocked by User:Mdaniels5757, who I had called to my talk page, after over a week.

So my problems with the behaviour of both admins are as follows:

  • Both Ruthven and Elcobbola doing nothing against a copyright violation (File:Staged map of border changes in Karabakh as per 2020 Armenia- Azerbaijan Agreement.png), even after beeing notified more than once and having acknowledged the problem by themselves and in Ruthvens case actively protecting the copyright violation
  • A disproportionate block by Ruthven of 1 month for having reverted him once
  • Ruthven blocking me after being active as admin in the same case with a different action (rejecting the copyvio DR)
  • Ruthven meddling with File:Caucasus 1060n map de.png. The file was created by me (2009) and I was the only contributor (changes 2010). User:Ercwlff reverted the file to the old version from 2009 due to him just not believing in the sources I had given in the meantime. Ruthven reverted again to the version preferred by Ercwlff, without any explanation. His action was not identifiable as an action as admin in any way either. Ruthven thus just acted as edit warrior. Plus Ruthvens/Ercwlffs version conflicted with the sources given for the contents of the map. Thus both produced forgery. And despite Ruthvens false claims I did not revert other's contributions here. That would be impossible, since the only contributions to this file were made by me. He was the one reverting other's contributions without explanation and by this producing forgery/pseudohistory. An as I am the only true contributor to the file and always named as the author, both are suggesting I was the one responsible for the forgery they did.
  • Ruthvens insults, defamations and threats. I will not comment everything he said, just two points: He repeatedly stated that I who worked with numerous scientific sources to compile a map and have no personal involvement in the topic would be less trusted than a self proclaimed nationalist who just expresses doubt because a map does not confirm his ideology. For what was I even doing all the work? Second are his repeated threats, that he could block me again at any time if he would find anything he does not approve. Which is especially terrifying as he uses absurd reasoning as "seeing a pattern" in just 2 edits (everyone and no one could see a pattern he wants to see in a sample of 2) and openly lying those were "reverts without explanations" and putting this up as reason for the block, even if all my reverts in this issue had elaborate explanations (Ruthvens claims). This gives me the feeling of anything I does could be a reason for another block by Ruthven. And it is a red flag for an admin making things up just as they suit him regardless of what happened.
  • Elcobbola supporting Ruthven in his behaviour. Which is even more worrisome as a self-confessed nationalist is also involved in the issue and Elcobbola as a checkuser would be able to access undisclosed data about me.

Judging by his own measures Ruthven should be blocked für 3 month. 1 month for edit warring. 1 month for protecting a copyright violation. 1 month for insults, defamations and threats. If his own measures are refused, he should be blocked for 4 weeks. 1 week for everything aforementioned each and 1 week for abuse of adminship due to the disproportionate block. But I assume different oppinions on that will emerge which I am curious about.

Sorry for so many words and thanks for reading. --Don-kun (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I provided my summary here and my comments speak for themselves. I renew my belief that Don-kun is intellectually dishonest, and consider this complaint disingenuous piffle in bad faith (e.g., "Elcobbola supporting Ruthven in his behaviour. Which is even more worrisome as a self-confessed nationalist is also involved in the issue and Elcobbola as a checkuser would be able to access undisclosed data about me.") Boomerang? Эlcobbola talk 17:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Idem, I clearly explained to the user in the talk page why their behaviour was disruptive (edit warring, for instance). Mdaniels5757 unblocked Don-kun against my advice, and now I invite him to deal with this "revenge" post on AN/U. Ruthven (msg) 20:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Elcobbola, both your summary and your reply here do come across as defamatory. You and Ruthven should be able to explain proper procedure without resorting to such animosity and excessive blocks, and Don-kun was right to bring your behaviour to our attention. Don-kun, this doesn't change the fact that the way forward for you is to start another, non-speedy DR. I know this is frustrating, but it may not take a year this time. You did editwar, and Elcobbola's close was correct given the information they had at the time. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

If Elcobbola's close was corrct is not the issue here. And I have the impression that so far no one here really cares about the rest. --Don-kun (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion says: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." You did the opposite twice. In my opinion block is fair. Unfortunately Commons is understaffed and some deletion requests take almost a year. Sorry for that. Taivo (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

As I already explained, for me the copyright violation was newly discovered. So your conclusion is wrong. Also you did not respond to any of the problems I explained above. --Don-kun (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Fjjsb5161 engaged in uploading copyright images only

Repeated uploading fair use images mainly TV serial banners and posters after repeated warnings. The user is always engaged in copyright violations. Latest being

Previous violations were

Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. No activity after you warned him/her. All contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Problem with User:Ruthven and User:Elcobbola

Hello! I want to open something like an arbitration with two admins, wich may be unusual for this page. But since Commons has no arbitration process I use this page. The 2 admins in question are User:Ruthven and User:Elcobbola. The case is as follows:

At the end of last year I opened a DR on a file because of errors in what it tries to depict, low quality and better alternatives available. Nothing happened until 10 month later Elcobbola closed the DR, keeping the file because it was in use in 2 projects and advising me to discuss the matter in languages I don't speak. Revisiting the file I recognised that the data in the unsourced map were taken from Open Street Map and there were some additional data (hill shading) not available at OSM, thus having originated in another not diclosed source. As not even the licence matched (still does not) to OSM, I choose to request a deletion via copyvio. This was rejected by Ruthven without explanation on the subject just because of the former DR and when I reinserted the copyvio I got blocked by Ruthven for 1 month.

After that Ruthven went to a different map about Georgia that I recently had reverted to the version backed by the given sources after a Georgian Nationalist had changed it back to a erroneous older version that suited his beliefs better. Despite me having given an explanation for every revert, Ruthven did not explain anything. On my talk page he also did not explain the revert other than with his bad faith. In the enduing discussions, also at Elcobbolas and Ruthvens talk page, mostly due to intervention by User:NordNordWest, I had to read a number of insults, defamations and threats especially by Ruthven. Both Ruthven and Elcobbola have acknowledged that the file #1 had copyright issues, but did nothing further regarding the issue. At the end I was unblocked by User:Mdaniels5757, who I had called to my talk page, after over a week.

So my problems with the behaviour of both admins are as follows:

  • Both Ruthven and Elcobbola doing nothing against a copyright violation (File:Staged map of border changes in Karabakh as per 2020 Armenia- Azerbaijan Agreement.png), even after beeing notified more than once and having acknowledged the problem by themselves and in Ruthvens case actively protecting the copyright violation
  • A disproportionate block by Ruthven of 1 month for having reverted him once
  • Ruthven blocking me after being active as admin in the same case with a different action (rejecting the copyvio DR)
  • Ruthven meddling with File:Caucasus 1060n map de.png. The file was created by me (2009) and I was the only contributor (changes 2010). User:Ercwlff reverted the file to the old version from 2009 due to him just not believing in the sources I had given in the meantime. Ruthven reverted again to the version preferred by Ercwlff, without any explanation. His action was not identifiable as an action as admin in any way either. Ruthven thus just acted as edit warrior. Plus Ruthvens/Ercwlffs version conflicted with the sources given for the contents of the map. Thus both produced forgery. And despite Ruthvens false claims I did not revert other's contributions here. That would be impossible, since the only contributions to this file were made by me. He was the one reverting other's contributions without explanation and by this producing forgery/pseudohistory. An as I am the only true contributor to the file and always named as the author, both are suggesting I was the one responsible for the forgery they did.
  • Ruthvens insults, defamations and threats. I will not comment everything he said, just two points: He repeatedly stated that I who worked with numerous scientific sources to compile a map and have no personal involvement in the topic would be less trusted than a self proclaimed nationalist who just expresses doubt because a map does not confirm his ideology. For what was I even doing all the work? Second are his repeated threats, that he could block me again at any time if he would find anything he does not approve. Which is especially terrifying as he uses absurd reasoning as "seeing a pattern" in just 2 edits (everyone and no one could see a pattern he wants to see in a sample of 2) and openly lying those were "reverts without explanations" and putting this up as reason for the block, even if all my reverts in this issue had elaborate explanations (Ruthvens claims). This gives me the feeling of anything I does could be a reason for another block by Ruthven. And it is a red flag for an admin making things up just as they suit him regardless of what happened.
  • Elcobbola supporting Ruthven in his behaviour. Which is even more worrisome as a self-confessed nationalist is also involved in the issue and Elcobbola as a checkuser would be able to access undisclosed data about me.

Judging by his own measures Ruthven should be blocked für 3 month. 1 month for edit warring. 1 month for protecting a copyright violation. 1 month for insults, defamations and threats. If his own measures are refused, he should be blocked for 4 weeks. 1 week for everything aforementioned each and 1 week for abuse of adminship due to the disproportionate block. But I assume different oppinions on that will emerge which I am curious about.

Sorry for so many words and thanks for reading. --Don-kun (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I provided my summary here and my comments speak for themselves. I renew my belief that Don-kun is intellectually dishonest, and consider this complaint disingenuous piffle in bad faith (e.g., "Elcobbola supporting Ruthven in his behaviour. Which is even more worrisome as a self-confessed nationalist is also involved in the issue and Elcobbola as a checkuser would be able to access undisclosed data about me.") Boomerang? Эlcobbola talk 17:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Idem, I clearly explained to the user in the talk page why their behaviour was disruptive (edit warring, for instance). Mdaniels5757 unblocked Don-kun against my advice, and now I invite him to deal with this "revenge" post on AN/U. Ruthven (msg) 20:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Elcobbola, both your summary and your reply here do come across as defamatory. You and Ruthven should be able to explain proper procedure without resorting to such animosity and excessive blocks, and Don-kun was right to bring your behaviour to our attention. Don-kun, this doesn't change the fact that the way forward for you is to start another, non-speedy DR. I know this is frustrating, but it may not take a year this time. You did editwar, and Elcobbola's close was correct given the information they had at the time. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

If Elcobbola's close was corrct is not the issue here. And I have the impression that so far no one here really cares about the rest. --Don-kun (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion says: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." You did the opposite twice. In my opinion block is fair. Unfortunately Commons is understaffed and some deletion requests take almost a year. Sorry for that. Taivo (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

As I already explained, for me the copyright violation was newly discovered. So your conclusion is wrong. Also you did not respond to any of the problems I explained above. --Don-kun (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

CardinalBoy27backup (talk · contribs)

Yet another Jermboy27 (talk · contribs) sock. Please also delete all uploads. Fry1989 eh? 15:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you trying to get rid of me? After you added categories in yourself? CardinalBoy27backup (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
You helped me added in the road sign to the category back in 2018. Remember? CardinalBoy27backup (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Your upload and editing history, and manner of response, leave me no other presumption. Fry1989 eh? 16:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Who cares. You added categories to my Portuguese road signs back in 2018, and you're getting rid of me! It's useless! CardinalBoy27backup (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked. All files deleted. What should we do with Road signs of Vietnam? Yann (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I would leave the page alone, since the images are legitimate. Thank you for your assistance. Fry1989 eh? 16:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@Fry1989, Yann, and Taivo: Thank you all. I updated m:srg#Global lock for Roadsover9000 et al.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Fry1989 (talk · contribs)

Yet another Jermboy27 (talk · contribs) sock. Please also block him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CardinalBoy271 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked CardinalBoy indefinitely as sockpuppet of Jermboy. Taivo (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Please also delete the uploads of the CardinalBoy271 account. Fry1989 eh? 15:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

CardinalBoy272 (talk · contribs)

We have another. Please also delete the uploads of this account and of the CardinalBoy271 account above. Fry1989 eh? 01:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all edits deleted or reverted. Yann (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Thank you, but could you please also delete the uploads of CardinalBoy271 (talk · contribs)? I've asked twice before and it hasn't been done. Fry1989 eh? 16:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Yann (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Cardinalboy273 (talk · contribs)

Here's another one. Please also delete the uploads. Fry1989 eh? 00:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you checked the source for the Morocco yield sign? https://www.alamy.com/give-way-road-sign-in-english-and-arabic-at-the-emirates-palace-hotel-image64626683.html Cardinalboy273 (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sunday's hatch

Is this really how you want to recall my presence? The metal on the building has been there for nearly twenty-five years. The singers on Sunday have the same friends. Are you admins proud of yourselves? Does your self-respect still exist? Yes, I got emotional but you were the ones smoking the cigarettes. I won't be editing Wikipedia tomorrow night. What are you even thinking now?--BeachFather (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Yes, we are proud of ourselves, and to show my pride I blocked you for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Is there some deleted, hidden, or oversighted basis for that rant?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
BeachFather has no deleted edits. Taivo (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 Comment I would have ignored them. --A.Savin 12:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, a block for one weird nonsensical comment, the user's only edit here, is a bit heavy handed. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
If you want to unblock him, let it be. Taivo (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't want, and it's not worth wasting time. Exactly for this reason I would have ignored them. Regards --A.Savin 11:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I would think that just removing the comment as obviously misplaced was the only response warranted here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Vandalizm by user:PolishBoyInUK / User:Gejzir.owski

The thing is about the user "82.25.126.28, PolishBoyInUK, Gejzir.owski". I suppose it's the same. Vandalizes on commons, english wiki, and possibly others. I now present the fruits of his "fruity" that I have revised on the english wiki [45] and on commons [46]. It is especially virulent because it often makes two changes in a row and the revert becomes complicated (See input 82.25.126.28). The particular insolence he has uploaded onto the commons is a fake panorama of small town Hel in Poland with a skyscraper [File: Hel Panorama 2020.jpg] as well as the graphics allegedly of Lidl on Hel (in fact in Władysławowo) and McDonalds on Hel. It is time to check everything he has done and uploaded to commons and other projects. 2A01:C23:951E:AB00:153F:592E:8690:7949 23:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I came here to discuss the same case. Yesterday I was alerted by the IP about the edits by user:PolishBoyInUK and his sockpupet User:Gejzir.owski and so far my findings are:
  • According to the page user:PolishBoyInUK, User:Gejzir.owski is his other alias I will refer to both accounts edits as PolishBoyInUK
  • from what I can tell PolishBoyInUK Modus operandi seem to be uploading images with wrong information and than using those images to add misinformation to Wikipedia articles. For example:
It seems like PolishBoyInUK was blocked indefinitely by User:Achim55 and I just did the same to User:Gejzir.owski. We might need help cleaning up the edits by those accounts, and be on a lootout for other similar activity. Great thanks to 2A01:C23:951E:AB00:153F:592E:8690:7949 for alerting us. --Jarekt (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gejzir.owski --Achim55 (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Christian Ferrer

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

Christian Ferrer earlier unblocked Rodhullandemu. I am raising discussion here as the unblock has several problematic aspects, and attempting to raise the issue directly with Christian Ferrer has been unproductive. I consider their responses and behaviour following their unblock to lack the level of accountability and fundamental respect for the community that we expect from administrators, hence I am raising this thread to allow Christian the opportunity to respond fully to my concerns, and if discussion progresses in such a direction, to allow the community the opportunity to decide whether an de-RfA discussion should be held.

Rodhullandemu was indefinitely blocked for making a death threat, at the time of Christian Ferrer accepting an unblock request, discussion was continuing on whether the community wished to unblock Rodhullandemu, and whether any conditions would be required before an unblock request would be accepted. Christian Ferrer was involved in the discussion and had expressed support for an unblock, and additionally had expressed an opinion that the block was never necessary [47]. They subsequently accepted the unblock, despite not discussing the issue with the blocking administrator [48][49]. There was certainly no consensus to accept an unblock at the time Christian accepted the unblock, and they appear to be entirely disinterested in the fact that unblocking at the time was opposed by several users (myself included).

They have been asked to reinstate the block by two (at time of posting) administrators (myself and Yann). In their response [50] to my concerns of undertaking an unblock request when already involved in the discussions concerning the block, and having displayed a strong opinion on the block, they state ...sorry, before to perform the unblock I have read again our policy, and is is quite clear: "...may only be declined by an uninvolved administrator", not the opposite. And if you think the opposite is obvious, well, you can see that it is not my case. They also continue to make attempts to justify Rodhullandemu's behaviour in my request for accountability All this for an IP only acting as a vandal... well ok if it is how is our community, here we go. which is, in my opinion, unacceptable for two reasons - it again demonstrates that they have not acted in a neutral, unbiased manner when reviewing the unblock, additionally they appear to be justifying the behaviour of leaving death threats for IP/anonymous users, which is hugely detrimental to our project.

Christian continues to justify the unblock with what I believe to be faulty and concerning logic, such as calling conditions or sanctions against Rodhullandemu "punishment and blackmail" [51] and displays further inappropriate behaviour which is not (in my opinion) becoming of an administrator when asked to account for their behaviour, such as posting a poem [52].

I would appreciate comments and discussion from the community - also, can I ask that we do not relitigate the Rodhullandemu discussion, but where possible, we try to discuss Christian Ferrer. I also think the community would benefit from comments/discussion on involved administrative actions and consensus for unblocking. Nick (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose, as you might expect. But the idea of "involved" is only related, as far as I can see, to being in dispute with another editor, and has no application to the exercise of an Admin's discretion, which is part of the job and why they were given the bit as they showed that they were capable of exercising discretion prudently. That you disagree with the exercise of discretion is neither here nor there. I've read many, many legal appeal decisions in which the appellate court absolutely refused to interfere with a discretion unless it was "manifestly unreasonable", in the sense that no reasonable tribunal could (not should) have reached it. The unblock rationale clearly shows that Christian considered the issues I raised and quite rightly gave any consensus not to unblock the weight it deserved. Sorry, but You Can't Always Get What You Want, and I suggest this proposal should be strangled at birth. It's over. Let it go. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    ...strangled at birth is a poor choice of words. Krok6kola (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    It was a reference to Cyril Smith's comment about the Alliance between the Social Democrats and Liberal Party in 1987, but I don't expect people to know that. It's a metaphor, nothing more and is not meant to be offensive. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Rodhullandemu Another user has already suggested that Christian, as a non-native English speaker, has misunderstood the situation. But you claim to be a native English speaker; you have no excuse. This is clearly not going away; the least you can do is avoid making this worse with poor wording like this. Brianjd (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Tensions are running high here, and obscure metaphors do not help. Even worse, another user has already suggested that Christian, as a non-native English speaker, has misunderstood the situation. This is clearly not going away quickly. Brianjd (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Unsure what's being "opposed" above, given this isn't a vote. I've had a half eye on this disappointing situation since it happened, and found myself somewhat speechless when Christian Ferrer unilaterally unblocked Rodhullandemu in a display of what can only be described as pure, bias cabal-ing. I find myself questioning if I should be making this comment, as I am not very active here and have not been a steward for quite some time - I do however know that Nick is a level-headed and respected admin, and not someone who would "overreact" to such a situation. Christian, I do not know you well, and I have no reason to believe you're manifestly a bad administrator from this single bad unblock, but I do implore you to listen to your colleagues and reinstate the block. Everyone makes hasty mistakes, please do not compound yours by doubling down, lest this thread finds consensus to desysop you for cause ~TNT (she/they • talk) 22:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I have not had any previous interactions with Christian Ferrer, but I am appalled at this unblock, and Christian's total refusal to listen to the numerous editors and admins who have called this unblock wildly inappropriate, least of all AntiCompositeNumber, the blocking administrator. That Christian had previously voiced support for a block appeal by Rodhullandemu before unblocking him is an obvious indication of bias. Administrators are supposed to be impartial in disputes like this, and to not get directly involved when they are not impartial. Quite frankly, I consider this conduct unbecoming of an administrator. And Rodhullandemu's gloating across Commons, displaying some of the same incivility he has repeatedly been in trouble for in the past, is not helping. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Gloating? Where? I am not on Wikpediocracy, so I don't gloat. But, even if you don't like it, I will tell it as I see it. No doubt Christian saw the opinions of others, and gave them appropriate weight as he saw fit. He exercised his discretion as he was fully entitled to do. That's why he was entrusted with the Admin bit. But undoing his unblock, however much the clamour to do so, is wheel warring: "When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision". On en:WP, that would be an immediate ArbCom case for the reversing Admin. And then, there'd be another unblock request, more discussion, more argument, more heat, less light. Nothing is to be gainedby prolonging this agony any further. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
He has just lifted unlawful, too impulsive block. Simple as that. A threat of physical harm is a crime, but what local or global policy justifies an instant block for such a crime? Instant blocks are reserved for obvious vandals and LTAs and it is rather hard to say that sole purpose of Rodhullandemu’s presence here is to throw death threats at innocent vadals. --jdx Re: 07:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • (When I will use "you", I talk to everybody not someone in particular) I have read again our policy section "Appealing a block". Where the word "neutral" is writen? where is it writen that unblock should be performed only by uninvolved administrators? However two points have been raised while only one was needed:
1/ a credible promise that the behavior will not be repeated have been provided
2/ an explanation why the block is not appropriate have been provided

For the first point you will find it words by words in the unblock request. The second is also writen in the text, to condition potential "apologies" vs indef block is indeed highly inappropriate, and way too much disproportionate, as regard to the mistake done. Although it takes the form of a threat it is not a true threat, it's a slip, in bad taste of course, but a simple verbal slip (in the sense verbal excess) given impulsively to an IP just acting like a vandal. Rodhullandemu should not have done this, I agree, and he have been warned for that, even by myself. This is sufficiant. To block indefinitely Rodhullandemu demanding "apologies" is unfair and blackmail, and of course Rodhullandemu can not acknowledge such a thing apart from lying to please you, hence the term blackmail I used. I perceveid that Rodhullandemu was not ready to perform such a lie, to his credit from my point of view, and that inspired me the little poem I have written a in the other noticeboard, sorry if you don't like it. I have nothing more to say. I will not undo my action, I will not apologie, and I am fully ready to assume the consequence. Sorry to appears potentially impolite, but as I have said all I had to say there is signifiant chance that I don't comment anymore here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  •  Support a desysop request. This was a rogue unblock and Christian has shown a willingness to ignore what the community has to say, not to mention any sort of norm on how we expect contributors to this site to act towards others, even if they are only represented by an IP. Both of these are bad characteristics and unbecoming of an admin on any Wikimedia site. --Rschen7754 07:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
     Comment AFAIK for a poll on whether to open a desysop request a separate subsection has to be started, and the user should be notified separately too. I know this, because myself was subject of such polls too, started by... guess whom. Here we have only a COM:ANU complaint, not a poll yet, so no point in voting at the moment. Opinions are welcome of course. --A.Savin 12:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    Commons:Administrators/De-adminship#De-adminship process as a result of abuse of power only says that "prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal" is required. It says nothing about a poll, a separate subsection, or notifying the user. Brianjd (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    Pinging @A.Savin. Brianjd (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    What's the point in pinging me? That was how I experienced this; if you read something different from COM:A, be bold and try it the other way. --A.Savin 07:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to say, I would hope that the Commons community would not desysop over this incident. I agree that his unblock was incorrect, but I believe that Christian has made the mistake of taking certain things at face value, where they should not be, especially as the level of nuance is less clear to a non-native speaker of English. One of the things I admire most about Commons is the way that those who speak multiple languages are able to work together for the common good. Christian Ferrer, please, consider that there may be more to this than meets the eye, you have long term Commons admins and many users in good standing all suggesting that enough is enough. A good community works collaboratively, listens to each other. Look at where the consensus lies and ask yourself why. WormTT · (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I would disagree. I will not undo my action, I will not apologie, and I am fully ready to assume the consequence. - he has the opportunity to fix this mistake and doesn't, that is a really bad character trait for an administrator to have. --Rschen7754 19:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
      What mistake? Lifting bad, out of process block is a mistake? --jdx Re: 20:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Worm That Turned This seems like a weak excuse. No one asked Christian Ferrer to get involved. If they felt they did not understand the situation, because of language difficulties or any other reason, they should not have got involved, especially given they failed to consult the blocking admin. And given they were involved in discussion for over a day before granting the second unblock request, they should have understood there was a problem here. Brianjd (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    Perhaps. I was hoping Christian might see the light, along with my belief that people aren't perfect and should be allowed to make mistakes. However, the doubling down after all this does rather step on that hope. WormTT · (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Honestly I've held off commenting, got some fresh air and hoped I would see things more differently than I did yesterday evening, My thoughts are this:
Christian had supported Rod's first unblock[53] as well as made comments at AN[54][55] so he already formed an opinion on the situation so therefore he should've left the unblocking to someone who didn't form an opinion on the situation. Christian didn't consult the blocking admin either which is another issue on its own.
Everyone makes mistakes but had I seen the death threat and then the AN thread - Would I have unblocked someone who made one ? = Not a chance in hell .... so in that respect I can't understand why on earth Christian did (Surely they would've known unblocking would've only made things a thousand times worse?)
Honestly yesterday when I typed my original comment out I supported desysopping Christian and sort of still do but on the other hand despite his actions I feel it's a bit OTT to desysop over one mistake, As far as I know prior to yesterday Christian has never jumped in head first into controversy like this and hasn't made a huge mistake like this before. I honestly dunno whether a desysop should happen or not. –Davey2010Talk 16:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Yup unfortunately they've since stated it wasn't a mistake. They've also since stated they're proud of their actions. If a desysop was held I would unequivocally support it. –Davey2010Talk 20:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • It was a bad unblock and RH&E should be reblocked --Guerillero 16:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What a mess. The original block was fine. Whether the threat was legitimate or not, it was completely unnecessary. We'd be quick to slap down a newer editor who said something like that, and a veteran shouldn't be treated differently. As for this, Christian Ferrer shouldn't have lifted the block unilaterally since he was involved and a discussion regarding Rodhullandemu's behavior was ongoing. Any unblock requests should have been dealt with by a completely uninvolved admin. clpo13(talk) 20:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The original block was NOT fine. It was based on COM:NPA, which is an under-construction essay, a copy of wp:NPA which is NOT policy here, merely an opinion in its context. Imposing sanctions based on an opinion, however you may think it's true, is monstrously improper. This is because anyone could write an essay saying "this is how I think things should work", and you could be sanctioned for failure to comply. That has got to be nonsense, and why I proposed on Commons talk:No personal attacks that this is a vast hole in the our (or your) processes. Users have the right to know their obligations and rights, and if something is not specified as mandatory, it's obviously moot and unenforceable. It's a horrendous lacuna and should be fixed. But not retrospectively, because you can't play games with policy and users' expectations in that manner. There is no reason to reblock me on a faulty premise. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the <big> coding and bolding from your above comment as putting it in huge big black letters doesn't help matters here. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The original block was entirely justified and long overdue, and undoing it against the obvious consensus was a serious error in judgement. That being said, what I'm not seeing is any evidence that it is part of a pattern of poor judgement by this admin, which is what I would expect to see in a desysop request. striking perChristian's subsequent comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    No, this discussion and the discussion on the neighbouring board are proofs that there is no consensus, not even speaking about "obvious consensus". And the original block was not OK because according to COM:BP Accounts and IP addresses used solely for severely disruptive purposes such as automated spamming, serious vandalism or harassment may also be blocked without prior warning, in simple words: only obvious vandals, LTAs, etc. are not required to be warned first. Rodhullandemu is not any of these. Additionally Controversial blocks may be discussed at the blocks and protections noticeboard, preferably before they are applied if at all possible. As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block. --jdx Re: 05:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Jdx Harassment can earn you an instant block, but death threats cannot. Good to know. Brianjd (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    Instant block where? On what basis? BTW, looking at mentioned discussions, by definition (en:WP:HA, COM:HA is not a policy or a guideline yet) it is Rodhullandemu who should rather feel to be harassed. BTW2, AFAIK threats of physical harm, including death threats, are forms of harassment. --jdx Re: 06:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Jdx On the basis of the passage that you quoted. And you have now acknowledged that death threats are a form of harassment, which means that based on your own comments, the block was justified. Brianjd (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    Is in your opinion Rodhullandemu’s account used solely for harassment? Because I do not get it how else these quotes could justify an instant block for harassment. --jdx Re: 06:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Jdx: I missed that bit. I still think a block, even without warning, is clearly in the spirit of this policy. Of course, such a block should be lifted quickly if the blocked user demonstrates an ability and willingness to change, but we have not seen that here. Brianjd (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    I also question whether a specific warning is necessary, or whether, for example, being desysopped for uncivil behaviour is enough of a warning, as others have suggested. Brianjd (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Wrong. The original block was out of process, for which the original blocking Admin should be sanctioned, although perhaps it hasn't been brought to the fore until now. So, maybe a forgiveable lapse of judgement, even given that Admins are supposed to know what is policy and what isn't. Even so, Admins are not always governed by consensus otherwise their role would be merely a rubber stamp. I've already pointed out that consensus does not govern discretion, where that discretion exists. It's indicative, but Admins should not be slaves to it otherwise there's no point having them. The alternative is to do everything, and I mean everything by consensus. See how far that gets you on DRs, copyvio deletion nominations, dealing with vandalism. Please don't be silly. We've already long passed that point. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 Support desysop. I was leaning against it until I saw this in Special:Diff/610855515:
All this for an IP only acting as a vandal
No, this is about death threats, not vandals. Also, IP addresses can be shared between users, and those users can change over time. All these issues were made clear at the COM:AN/BP discussion, and an admin should understand all of them anyway, yet Christian ignored them. Brianjd (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Christian is still at it in Special:Diff/611179247, a long comment made just a few minutes before my comment here (they made a series of follow-up edits to correct typos, but the main points are all clearly shown in this diff). They are digging in on their claims that the IP address is just a vandal, that the threat was not real, and that the blocked user promised not to repeat their behaviour, in all cases ignoring the extensive discussion about these points. Brianjd (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced a desysop is an appropriate response, I am now. it is alarming to see an admin so bound and determined to defend indefensible behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Christian also seems to believe WHEEL WARRING took place[56] and hasn't bothered to retract that blatantly incorrect statement. Not to continue this whole thing on but it's one thing ballsing up and admitting it ... but it's another to pull this stunt and then despite the opposition faced they still defend their actions and then start making random things up in order to try and justify their actions mistake.
Their actions are unbecoming of any admin and honestly if a desysop was held tomorrow I would support it as sadly this doesn't look to have been a mistake but instead an admin completely ignoring everyone just to suit themselves.
I shall say no more here but Yann reblocking them confirms death threats aren't okay and that's good enough(ish) for me. –Davey2010Talk 12:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Noting that I have stricken out my previous opposition to a desysop procedure. I don't expect admins to be perfect, and I don't expect them to be robots in perfect lockstep with one another, but I do expect them to be open to the idea that might act outside of what the community expects of them once in a while, and to be willing to listen when such criticism comes alonng. I'm not seeing that here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_95&oldid=613167052"