Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 80

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

Rangel Carregosa

Doesn't understand fair use despite warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Same person

Users uploaded selfpromo files that is the same person. Both do not have edits out of commons and Navneet0135 only edit was uploading the file. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 07:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. The suspicious files are nominated for deletion, Navneet hasn't edited for year. At moment nothing more is needed. Taivo (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Caio bryan

Adds wd nonsense descriptions, mostly of coprological nature. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 Comment 3 edits in the last 7 days? A warning would be more appropriate Gbawden (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • More appropriate than what, Gbawden? Did I request any particular sanction? I didn’t, I was just warning admins about this vandalism-only account. But anyway, you may say it’s 3 (actually 4) edits in 7 days and therefore no biggie, while I say that 100% of this user’s edits were rubbish (75% litteral poo jokes, the remaining 25% just random vandalism) and therefore it should be routinely blocked, no qualms. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Concerning Basile Morin’s translation link, please be aware that while "coco" means indeed "coconut", this user likely mean to write "cocô", with a different meaning, less botanical than zoological (indeed coprological, as said in the o.p.). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Android app: Feed for adding captions

We're actually seeing a lower revert rate for users of this feature than newcomers in general so far (numbers based mainly on Wikidata, as it's pretty new for Commons).
As a piece of housekeeping, and to keep vandals out, we're working on automatically blocking/removing this feature from app users who get reverted too many times, beyond what can be expected for newcomers who want to help out and are learning how. We've laid out some plans in mw:Wikimedia Apps/Team/Android/AppEditorTasks#Suggested Edits 3.0 - Improved Suggested Edits Homescreen and Feature Pausing and phab:T231449 – feedback is very welcome.
(Just to be clear, that'd just be the app feature inviting the person to go through these feeds. We wouldn't block the account in general, that's a community decision. All other editing would continue functioning as it normally does.) /Johan (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
(Timely question, by the way: information about this is to go out in Tech News on Monday, asking for feedback on anti-vandal parts this feature.) /Julle (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Johan (WMF): I need to ask again, as it’s still unclear to me: Is your mechanism capable of detecting if/when a given caption content was in any way superseded, such as replacement via a later edit, or only outright reversals as such? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
No, this is specifically being reverted using undo/rollback. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In that case, any characterization of the level of vandalism the feature attracts and any decisions about blocking or not any given user based on statistics of enacted reversions will be inadequately incomplete — as minimum vandalism, not total, is being shown through bookkeeping of reversions. Even though these are atomic edits and not wikitext (where a lot of past vandaslistic edits may be superseded in a single rewriting), how often any later editor, upon noticing some blatant nonsense in a caption, will go check the page’s history and click undo/rollback thereon, instead of more simply just edit the caption and overtype the nonsense with something sensible? (The latter incidently is better for the project.) Very often, I say — and that’s why stats about reversions should now be allowed to show the matter in a more optimist light than it would reveal itself should this trivial fact about later undoings be considered. (And this is why trying to model human behaviour via atomic “databasing” in a project geared to collaborative writing, which seems to be the spirit behind WD, technically, is a pie-in-the-sky, to be charitable — as anyone programming ABAP the past decade could have told you.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Relevant criticism, on how edits might be superseded – I'm passing this feedback on to the rest of the team.
I'd just like to point out two things: a) This is true also for the kinds of edits we've been comparing to, to get an idea of revert rates in this functionality compared to other revert rates, and b) of course, as with any edit tool, vandalism will be an issue. There's no way we can have a wiki anyone can edit and not get vandals. But we want to do what we can in the tool itself, to lessen the burden on the communities, so any feedback on how to best do this is very welcome. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin and Johan (WMF): I made a quick help page at Help:Suggested edits. It’s just an 'executive summary' of (and pointer to) the MediaWiki.org page which I think is well made, it’s just not so easy to find :-)
There’s also a link to the hashtags tool to get a feed of the changes.
Hope that helps, Jean-Fred (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! /Johan (WMF) (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Yann

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This admins and anothers actions are being discussed at Commons:Administrators/Requests. No use in keeping this open any longer. 1989 (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It is well known that Yann has had something personal against me and has based a lot of admin decisions on his personal sentiments against me. Now again he is trying to somehow banning me from commenting, see here and newer history of that page. It was already very clear that is was no way suitable for Yann to close this UDR, because they were way too involved, as was also told to them by others. This hostile behaviour has to stop here and now. Jcb (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop your usual bullshit, would you? Yann (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Your attempt to get me desysoped of the closure of this DR: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_79#Jcb. Jcb (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
See User_talk:1989/Archive_2#Jcb where @1989: told you that it was inappropriate for you to undeleted in this case. Jcb (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and that's only the tip of the iceberg. Now we can write a novel with the list of your wrong deletions, non respect of standard admin work (responding to others, etc.) Yann (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually the reason for this report is your continuous disrespect for fellow admins. I think the links I posted here speak for themselves. Jcb (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and I did notify the user about this report, but they reverted the notification. Jcb (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
That revert and the original link were both inappropriate uses of Rollback.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
You should have been desysopped years ago. The only reason you're still here is your admin action count. You successfully conditioned the community to fear that Commons will fall apart because you contribute ~15% of all admin actions. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Blocked by 1989 for a week.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Then: what's the point of your block? Punishment? Prevention? It's pretty obvious that this block isn't going to solve anything between Jcb and Yann. Besides, by blocking only Yann you are rewarding Jcb's bad behavior. Also: your block isn't argument based. You merely make statements without providing evidence or support them with arguments. The accusation of vandalism isn't supported by any evidence. "Misuse of sysop tools, performing involved actions and vandalism" is the block reason after all. Misuse of sysop tools and performing involved admins are the same block reasons. Performing involved admin actions is a subgroup of misuse of sysop tools. A double jeopardy. Also, our blocking policy requires sufficient warning before blocking over behaviors issue's. I'll give you a chance to properly motivate your block or I'll lift the block for not complying with our blocking policy. (Punitive rather than preventive, no sufficient warning). Natuur12 (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The history they have with each other is irrelevant to me. I’m not rewarding anybody if that’s what you think. I blocked them based on their actions alone in which I’ve told them not to do. What’s the point of another warning when the deed has been done? They were in a dispute with another admin over a closure and should not have restored those files. For my block reason, as I said misuse of sysop tools, I described the type after to clarify. If you wish to remove the block, you can go on ahead. I will not put myself through this any longer. 1989 (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • They performed actions in an involved dispute. I told them to let an uninvolved admin make the restorations and closure and from their actions they refused. 1989 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Natuur12, the block is not in line with the blocking policy. @1989: Please remove the block. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I also agree with the removal of Yan's block. The alleged reasons for this action do not comply with our blocking policy: "misuse of sysop tools", what includes "performing involved actions", is not a reason for blocking (except in very rare cases), as well the user did not practice "vandalism" (as I see it, he was seeking to remove an inappropriate and offensive comment). Anyway, I agree with an IBAN between Jcb and Yann as a way to deal with this (old) conflict. Érico (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support this block Yann reverted another administrator to disallow him from commenting on one of his DRs. Unacceptable. How anyone can bandy about this excuse of "blocks are meant to be preventative" when this has been going on for years is beyond me; the block is preventative. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support blocking Jcb as well, after reading the diff. Both of these users are out of line. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I also don't understand the reason for this block: what's the alleged abuse of the tools? The rollback? (While the undo button would have been preferable, the reason for the revert was obvious: the discussion had already been closed.) Or the restoration? Yann seems to have acted on a clear consensus, while the original deletion by Jcb seems to be against consensus: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:The Stand News. Maybe the deletion was right but the correct way for Jcb to proceed would be to open a new DR with better evidence, not to edit war on COM:UDR. At this point I see enough evidence to block Jcb but nothing wrong on Yann's end. Nemo 17:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    Clear consensus or not, they should not have been the one to do it and I’ve warned them not to. That was the point of them getting blocked. 1989 (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blocking either of them,  Support an IBAN between Yann and JCB (adhering to the bullet points set out at en:WP:IBAN), If either of them break this then blocks should be issued. IMHO an IBAN is the only sensible way of solving this .... blocks achieve nothing. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 17:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I went ahead and un blocked Yannn. I explicitly asked the administrator who preformed the block to motivate why their block is in line with our block policy. This blocking admin said I could go ahead with unblocking Yann and didn't motivate his block any further. The comment they are referring too ("What’s to laugh about? You restored a template without closure of the discussion while in a dispute with Jcb about the closure. Seriously, let an uninvolved admin make the decisions. 1989 (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)") can hardly be called a warning. This is why:
  • The Oxford definition of a warning is telling or showing somebody that something bad or unpleasant may happen in the future so that they can try to avoid it.
  • The Cambridge definition is: something that makes you understand there is a possible danger or problem, especially one in the future:
  • The Oxford US deinifion is: a statement, an event, etc. telling someone that something bad or unpleasant may happen in the future so that they can try to avoid it
  • The element "something bad or unpleasant may happen"" is lacking in 1989 their comment. Therefor the condition "ensure that the user has been appropriately warned" in Commons:Blocking policy isn't met.
  • Blocks need to be preventive. It's an administrators duty to provide arguments why a block is preventive rather than punitive. As in: is there any reason provided why to assume that the applied block (both in reason and in lenght) contributes to preventing further unwanted behaviour. I understand Magog's comment but they as well didn't provided any valid argument about what this block actually prevents.
  • To conclude my statement: our blocking policy is pretty clear. "blocks are a last resort for behaviour that has the potential to damage Commons or disrupt its collegial atmosphere" . Other possible courses of action (like the mentioned interactionban) wheren't explored in this thread. Natuur12 (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Back to topic

Now that Yann's block has been lifted and can now participate in this discussion, how do we resolve the dispute between these two prolific admins? I really don't think we should stand akimbo while this dispute continues. Frankly speaking, I don't think Yann should be the one to be restoring stuffs deleted by Jcb considering that both users have no good working relationship in the past few years. I have seen Yann doing this many times. Jcb on the other hand has been warned numerous times to be more diligent in using the deletion button but they seem to have shown no significant improvement. Admin tool is a privilege and not a right and where that privilege appears to have been abused multiple times, the community reserve the right to remove it. I don't want to see this privilege withdrawn from these users. Commons is a very lenient community, otherwise these users would have long been desysoped. The dispute between Yann and Jcb isn't good for our project considering that both users are admins and I honestly think the community should resolve it before it degenerate beyond repair. Regards. T CellsTalk 20:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have been avoiding interaction with them already for several years (e.g. not keep-closing their DRs, not reject-closing their UDRs). If Yann would do the same, we would not be here at this noticeboard so often. Jcb (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would  Support the removal of Yann's administrative privileges, followed by an indefinite block from Commons. In my experience, Jcb has always been an honest, fair and impartial administrator. I cannot say the same about Yann, and the simplest answer to this particular problem would be to remove him (Yann) from the project. AshFriday (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Jcb: honest, fair and impartial. (sarcasm) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support blocking Jcb Here goes Jcb again: you're either with Jcb or against him. And if you're not with Jcb, he will attack you and try to get you desysopped or blocked. Also, Jcb has been operating as an admin without actual community support for a long time. As I believe it is hardly the bit that makes you an admin but instead the community support, reverting Jcb actually can't be wheel warring. Imagine that Jimbo would assign himself the admin bit again on Commons (he won't, but he could) and existing admins would start reverting his actions. I wouldn't call that wheel warring. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I am an admin at this project. Whether you like this or not is completely irrelevant. Jcb (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
      • You have a bit. I don't consider you an admin. We both know that if you did an RFA today, it would fail. I've seen some admins who gave up their bit when they were less active for a period of time, saying "if I want to be admin again, I should be re-elected by the community in an RFA". Even though they could easily hang on to their admin bit by performing a handful of actions twice a year. But they decide not to, and I deeply respect that. You are the opposite of that. You avoid any kind of vote like de-adminship or voluntarily going through RFA again to prove the community backs you, because you know the community doesn't back you. You have been an admin since 2013 (counting from your last RFA) and your authority has been questioned many times. The honorable thing to do would be to start an RFA yourself and prove you're not just coasting on that 6-year old RFA. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think Colin's suggestion above is fine. Colin, are you willing to start a proposal on this? T CellsTalk 21:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Planned attack

I just noticed that the Yann behaviour of yesterday was not an isolated incident, it is part of a planned attack, on which the user has been working for over a week. Please see User:Yann/Jcb. I more and more get the impression that we may not be able to save this user for the project. Jcb (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It's normal for users to maintain todo lists for backlog. One backlog we have at Commons is incorrect deletions. (Nobody is perfect and there are always mistakes; some are said to have higher error rates than others.) Nemo 15:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
It goes to show, you can't kill an idea. Jcb, please stop acting like you're the big boss of Commons. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
This is about the attack by Yann, not about the attack by you. Your attack pages were deleted by Christian Ferrer, not by me, and there was a clear consensus that Commons has no place for such attack pages. Jcb (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
They were deleted because you called them attack pages (which they weren't) and you reported them. Pretty much the same thing is happening here. You call it an attack (it isn't) and report it. In hopes that someone will delete the page (burn the evidence!) and block/desysop the user who tried to hold you accountable for your actions. (silence the opposition) You seem to think that'll end the drama. But the only thing that would actually end the drama is to prove you still have a mandate from the community, or step down if you don't. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikimedia Commons ArbCom? I think we need one on this project to deal with issues like this. T CellsTalk 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • We don't seem capable of blocking never mind de-admining either. We don't have an arbcom, nor any process to deal with this effectively. Adminship is not a right but a position awarded by the community. We get easy suggestions like IBANs or telling everyone to please be MELLOW but they don't solve the problem. Both these admins are behaving in a way that is unacceptable. Since when was "Stop your usual bullshit, would you?" acceptable on AN/U? From someone who tried to get COM:MELLOW to become policy? Clearly that lack of mellowness was only a fault in others. Both admins are acting like they have the badge for life and don't have to be held to the standards they expect of others. I agree with Magog that both were out of line and should have been blocked.
In IT it is well known that every problem can be solved by turning it off, waiting a little bit, and turning it back on again. If that doesn't fix it, it is broken for good. So I suggest we attempt to reboot both these admins. We de-admin both. They take a break from any administrative-like activities and areas of conflict (e.g. raising, tagging or commenting on DRs) for at least three months, lets say 2020. Go write some articles on Wikipedia or upload some photos. Then they can apply for the mop again and explain to Commons community why they deserve it. -- Colin (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Colin: Generally not unreasonable, but I just have to add: by your own definition.. Jcb has already been rebooted. And in general, it seems Yann is not nearly as often involved in conflicts as Jcb. (even when correcting for the amount of admin actions) At least, that's how I perceive things. I'm not saying Yann is perfect, but I'm not convinced he's "broken" to the point of needing a reboot. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
You are linking to a discussion from 7 years ago? Most of the cells in Jcb's body have been replaced since then. Both are acting like they are immune and can behave how they like. Yann's "conflict handling" circuit broke a while ago. -- Colin (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Colin: I just thought it was interesting in the light of what you said about rebooting. And I agree a desysop discussion from 7 years ago would be irrelevant, were it not for the fact many of the issues are the same today as they were back then. But it doesn't change much in the end for this discussion: reboot is absolutely fine with me. If the community elects Jcb as admin in the current age, he would regain his mandate. That's plenty good enough for me. As for Yann, I could have missed some discussions. (I don't read everything here, not enough time) Any relevant links that may convince me? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I have been avoiding interaction with Yann for several years now, but as long as they are wilfully doing the opposite, I don't see a real solution. Jcb (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You may be right about avoiding direction interaction, but you clearly haven't avoided doing the things that piss him off. And other people aren't too happy about those things either. -- Colin (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

Let both stand for a community review in a deadmanship discussion. GMGtalk 23:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  •  Support --大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 04:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment GreenMeansGo, can you clarify what you mean? Is this you determining if there is consensus to start a formal de-adminship on both? I wish there was a way to de-admin both without so much drama and judgement, and not necessary "under a cloud". More of a "you guys need to take a break from this to reset your priorities and behaviour". So I would like to see a period where they step back from the areas where they got into conflict (e.g. deletion) before proposing to regain adminship. The ideal would be both agree to resign for a period and re-apply later, though I suspect both are too proud for that. -- Colin (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Colin. I split this off to make it clear whether there was a consensus under COM:DESYSOP. It is not necessary here to demonstrate that deadmanship is warranted, but only that a formal discussion on the matter is warranted. GMGtalk 10:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Confused: "Piss him off" by Colin, after "stop your bullshit" and "wiping his ass"? Where's WP:CIVIL? Profanities in their toilets as much as they want, but here this is not a challenge -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes you are right about your "confused" template. Nothing uncivil about saying "Piss him off". It might not be language I'd use in front of the queen but a totally appropriate description of Jcb's actions and the likely response from Yann. Please don't bring your grudges to this board. -- Colin (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Vulgar language is impolite, and thus not compatible with WP:CIVIL. "Piss off" is like "bullshit" and "ass", not in front of the queen, but also not in front of us. This place is public, not "public toilets". Full nonsense, especially in this context -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Basile Morin: Vulgar language is not impolite. Being impolite is impolite. It's all about context. If I say "That fucking cab driver doesn't even know the way to the hotel", that's impolite. (and offensive) If I say "That fucking car broke down again", that's PG-13, but not particularly offensive and unless the queen is around, generally not terribly impolite. Where "stop your bullshit" and "wiping his ass" were directed at people, Colin's "piss him off" (which is less vulgar than the other two anyway) was directed more clearly at Jcb's actions. Also, COM:NOTCENSORED. Also, being civil and being polite are different things. You can swear six ways to sunday and still be civil. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
No. COM:NOTCENSORED is explicitly related to the material, while CIVIL#Identifying incivility applies to the interactions between the users. And the guidelines state: "The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:1. (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions" included this link to the word "profanity": "swear words, bad words, crude language, vulgar language". It means crude language, vulgarity and bad words are not acceptable in this project. SORRY, rules should be enforced. For everyone. It's all the more important here in this specific context, dealing with incivility. Follow WP:ESDOS: "Use neutral language." -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
COM:NOTCENSORED also says "image", but it applies to sound, video and other media equally. And by extension, everything. Discussions, essays, policies, help pages. I'm not sure why you are linking to Wikipedia, you are not on Wikipedia. We have Commons:Civility, but it's not policy. Your interpretation is wrong anyway, even on Wikipedia. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Our interpretations differ. But if not clear enough on WP:ESDOS it's written on Commons too COM:ESDOS: "Use neutral language" -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I just feel that these two sysops currently are showing bad behaviour, and one of them has an even longer track of inappropriate admin actions, arrogant tone, uncalled-for comments, and permanent conflicts on ANU. So if this proposal is the only chance to get at least one of both desysopped (because, as it seems, none of both is ever considering to run a confirmation voluntarily, though a confirmation is obviously overdue), we definitely should go for it. --A.Savin 08:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Reconfirmation RFAs, the key difference being that the community is asked to vote to support continuation of sysop privileges, rather than a negative vote. An unsuccessful reconfirmation RFA would not be considered "under a cloud", and as it is a confirmation process based on community support, there is no expectation that the community needs to spends weeks of volunteer time to "prove" policy breaches, before the confirmation votes proceeds. --Fæ (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Fæ an immediate reconfirmation RFA would not give either admin any break and time to reset. But I agree that a lengthy de-admin with all the piling up of diffs and negativity is not the best move. I would advise both Jcb and Yann to offer to resign and take a break, because right now it is looking like you are both heading for de-adminship under a cloud, and I don't think you'll find it so easy to get back. -- Colin (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree here in that I would prefer reconfirmation RFAs. I suggested such to Jcb several times, but he always ignored that. Reconfirmation would focus more on the positive, and failing an RFA isn't as much of a community rejection as a deadminship that succeeds. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
No. I want to ensure that Yann never subjects anyone else to threats, personal attacks and out-of-process blocks. There is no question in my mind that he has abused his authority on multiple occasions and for that reason alone, the community would be far better off without him. AshFriday (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Why are you then calling for his indefblock and not just desysop? Apparently never heard of COM:AGF? Of course it's a revenge, and a very primitive one. But this proposal is only about sysop flags, so for the rest of the community your indefblock suggestion is null and void. --A.Savin 07:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
To be clear AshFriday, this is not a discussion on whether either of them should lose their sysop tools; it is a discussion about whether they should stand for formal review by the community. If you have evidence that one or both of them has behaved in such a way that they have lost the community's trust, then you should present that at COM:RFA if or when the discussion is opened. It is perfectly possible that one or both of them would lose or retain the tools in the outcome of such a discussion. GMGtalk 10:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@AshFriday: GreenMeansGo is right. If you believe Yann should be desysopped and Jcb did nothing wrong, you should support this. Deadminship discussions are rare and if you are right (present any evidence at the RFAs), nothing will happen to Jcb and Yann would be desysopped. So if you believe that's the truth, you would be wise to support this. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I personally cannot trust either of them to hold the sysop tool. Contributing to commons in any capacity is a privilege and when that privilege is abused multiple times, we reserve the right to withdraw it as a community. Regards T CellsTalk 12:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - for the past three years I have been avoiding interaction with Yann as much as possible. Back in 2016, when Yann suddenly started to rollback my DRs, even rollbacking the notifications at the talk pages of the uploaders, rather than closing them normally. When attempts on-wiki to de-escalate did not pay off, I tried off-wiki, sending them this message: "Hi Yann, Are you alright? I'm really puzzled about what's going on. You are one of the last colleagues I would have expected to come in conflict with. I'm not sure how to resolve this and I don't understand what's happening. Am I missing something? Kind regards, Johan Bos (Jcb)" I am of course not publishing the response (Yann may do so if they wish), but most of you will be aware that the situation was not resolved. The second best when resolved the conflict apparently cannot be achieved is trying to have no confrontations. That's why I have been invoiding interaction, e.g. not keep-closing their DRs, not rejecting their UDRs, not undoing their blocks. But unfortunately Yann has continued to prepare and plan confrontations wilfully. That's not just my assumption, clear evidence is in the section above and it has also been noticed by other users. So I don't know what the community would be expecting more from me in order to tranquilize the situation with Yann, while the other party keeps heating up the fire on purpose? Jcb (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
"clear evidence is in the section above and it has also been noticed by other users." Lead-free cereal. People noticed, but nobody thought it was a bad idea.
"I don't know what the community would be expecting more from me" Really? You have no clue? After all these years? After many literal suggestions which you mostly ignored? This makes you sound like EA saying "I still struggle with the external perception that we're just a bunch of bad guys", pretending they have no clue loot box casinos are shit, running beloved studios into the ground results in bad blood and coining "surprise mechanics" is a massive joke. I find it both laughable and sadly plausible you have no idea what the problem is. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Something needs to be done, Personally I think Yann and Jcb are great admins here and don't want to see either of them blocked or desysopped, In all honestly Yann did start this by rollbacking when there was no need to do so however this isn't about taking sides - It's about finding a resolution here and trying to put an end to it all,
I still wish the IBAN proposal below could've worked but there were too many "what if" situations and too many easy ways to bypass it all .... If there was a way to resolve this without blocking, desysopping or public hanging then I would happily go that route. –Davey2010Talk 17:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
With regard to framing, it is a fault of our processes that they are difficult to apply in a non-adversarial way and invariably users make comments as if we were discussing crimes, exercising judicial processes and debating forensic evidence. Both Yann and Jcb are very committed and personally I know nearly nothing about their personal lives (or I have forgotten the gossip). I would much rather see sysop access as being no big deal, as it was intended on these projects at the beginning, and I have always advocated for trusted user status to be time limited. Limiting sysop, checkuser, oversight and bureaucrat to 3 or 5 years at a time between community reconfirmation votes would be an easy way to ensure that everyone using the tools is routinely required to answer questions about usage and conduct, with far less drama and trollish commentary that we have seen in many past AN discussions. In such an environment it would be far more normal for an admin to take a break from the tools or to have a ReRFA when they may have run into some controversy, without this being an exercise in being pilloried.
However this pans out, hopefully the majority of the community will get that there are people behind these long term accounts, and care should be taken to distinguish criticism of specific use of tools or trusted status, while recognizing the person's genuine commitment to open knowledge. --Fæ (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

IBAN proposal

Withdrawn - Having given this some thought I don't think this can be enforced and I think this may cause more issues than what it solves, If someone wants to recreate this they're more than welcome too but I don't believe this will help or work.

Also worth saying if either party comes here, provides rubbish evidence and gets blocked ... either party could very easily simply unblock themselves which would then create more mess - I don't want that too happen ...... I just feel going this route would cause more crap, I'm out of ideas tho now. Dave | Davey2010Talk 01:23, 15 September 2019 (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.

I propose Yann and Jcb are to be Interaction banned (IBANNED) indefinitely,

Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:
  • edit each other's user and user talk pages;
  • reply to each other in discussions;
  • make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Commons, directly or indirectly;
  • undo each other's edits to any page or file, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
  • use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.
  • IBANs can only be reported to ANU only and both parties will be limited to one post only - Both parties cannot post replies, If the community believe the posters evidence is not a violation then the poster will be blocked for 24hours which will increase each time the IBAN is violated.

If Jcb or Yann do any of the above then shorter blocks should happen and the length would increase each time the IBAN is violated. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 21:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  •  Support as nom - Yann and Jcb cannot or will not get on with each other and as blockings are pointless IMHO the next best solution is an IBAN between the 2,
I do want to make it clear that I'm not saying Yann is at fault or Jcb is at fault - A one-way IBAN could work but then that party would be upset and the drama would continue so therefore to make things easy IMHO it should be a two-way IBAN. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 21:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 Comment I think this won't work this way, avoiding interaction will be the best that's achievable. What when one party thinks that the other party violates the ban? Would we have an endless stream of reports on that? No, I don't think this is practical and I don't think this will do any good. And as long as from one side there is no intention at all to get things resolved, it won't help anyway. That is what really needs to change if we want to improve the situation. Jcb (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Technically en:WP:BANEX states you can only ask an admin to look at and deal with the violation however in this specific case that won't work .... so as such this page will be an exception,
To clarify: The poster can come here with strong solid diffs to present to the board - (this only must be one post and no replies), If the evidence is NOT a violation then that editor will be blocked for violating it, The person you are IBANNED with can make one post to state why they've not violated the IBAN but they too cannot post replies - So basically you both are limited to one post to this board when an IBAN is reported.
I've amended the above to include this, Thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 01:19, 15 September 2019 (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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


أحمد سمير محمد طه طلبة

uploading OOS after blocks. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 07:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked the user for a year. All contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Ninja cyborg X2

Just for the record: I've indef-blocked new user Ninja cyborg X2 (talk · contribs) as vandal-only account on the spot for his racist, insulting edits[1],[2],[3] in the soon to-be-deleted File:Nigerian Queer Lord Terrence Conway.jpg (by User:FloydTBE50-0). --Túrelio (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

OK. Such kind of racist remarks is like shouting "Block me as fast as you can!" Taivo (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Nxlo03qda

Just for the record: I've 1-week-blocked on the spot new user Nxlo03qda (talk · contribs) as they falsified/faked a positive Flickreview-report[4] for an NC-restricted image File:IG730244775.png from Flickr[5]. They had already 2 deleted copyvio-uploads.--Túrelio (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI I listed that flickr account under bad authors as that is clear flickrwashing Gbawden (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Túrelio: @Gbawden: Please look at en:Talk:João Félix#Copyright violations. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

PavelMuhin99

Likely sockpuppet of Панн. Looks like they are evading their block. Please check if this account is confirmed. --VKras (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no confirmed email address that allows sending.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@ Jeff G. Whether this is the case or not, I have an impression that this user is likely to be sock of Панн. --VKras (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Indef'ed. --A.Savin 19:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Ángel D. Olivares

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Three months time to buy own camera. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

WMF-banned IP sock

178.43.153.224 Acroterion (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by 1989. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

RIJEESH

If I'm not wrong, I believe that this user has been re-uploading deleted content. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 3 days for uploading non free despite warnings Gbawden (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Gipsyska (talk · contribs)

Hello.All user photos are non free.Check out Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gipsyska.Please act.Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done It appears that the files weren't deleted after the DR. I have now done this. User Gipsyska no longer active on Commons, no further action needed Gbawden (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

N.samarth1910250

OOS files after warning. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done blocked for 3 days Gbawden (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

RIJEESH PARIYARAN

Escape block by RIJEESH (talk · contribs), same uploads. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Alfa*4657

Escape block by Lavili (talk · contribs), same uploads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Rogel (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be the same person

Uploading same files that are dubious claim of own work. If it's their own work, I believe that they would've said something at the DRs. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked the master for a month and sock indefinitely. All uploads of both accounts are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Comandoranger

Same uploads as Comando2019 (talk · contribs), abusing multiple accounts. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the master for a month and sock indefinitely. All uploads of both accounts are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Fabrício Fernando

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

Years of uploading nothing but copyright violations, including prior warning and block. Doesn't appear that this user has gotten the message. GMGtalk 14:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for one month as the last chance. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

寺人孟子

He has continued to violate COM:OVERWRITE since I last left this message on his talk page. Not only that, but I also left the same message on Chinese Wikipedia(see here). I have noticed that he almost always overwrites his files. It's that situation that has brought me unnecessary workload because it must take a lot of time to check his uploaded files.

I reported him three months ago for overwriting files(see here), but they said it was my problem. Therefore, I have discussed about COM:OVERWRITE with the admin, and then I started working on checking 寺人孟子's files, which ones should be split from the older version. The problem is that he overwritten over 200 files. I warning him on his talk page, and said: "I request that you STOP immediately! If you violate COM:OVERWRITE again, the next complaint will be to COM:ANU without warning."

Look at File:牆面整修中的臺北公會堂.jpg, File:三井物產株式會社倉庫.jpg, and File:高石組.jpg, shows that the original version was overwritten by a different photo taken by the same author(User:寺人孟子) at a later date. Since COM:OVERWRITE prescribes that it is forbidden to overwrite for different files relating to the exact same object; his actions to that effect have included reverted my edits and De728631's edits. It is clear that he are deliberately violating COM:OVERWRITE and no communication with users.--Kai3952 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done This has been going on for over a year and the user has not got the message. Indeffed until some understanding of policy is shown. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sheikh Md. Hossain

Uploading OOS files despite warnings. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Blocked for 2 weeks and all files deleted. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 12:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Pbc.palestine

(Almost) everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked for 3 days Gbawden (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Clube Atletico Mineiro

Copyvios despite warning. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week, all uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Chenchella

Vandalism. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

User warned. Might be blocked at next vandal-edit. --Túrelio (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Non-free television screenshots

Hello.Please delete screenshots here.Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done I have deleted all but File:حيدرة الكواملة1.jpg which doesn't look like a screenshot to me. If you think it should also go, please feel free to nominate it for a regular deletion discussion. De728631 (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: The picture is about the same person and at the same event ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I see, but it could have been taken by the uploader outside of the main event. De728631 (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

El Kharisma Kasilembo

Uploading same content as JL KAS.. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 07:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
El was registered 2 days before JL KAS. but only started to edit shortly after JL Kas. was blocked. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by JL KAS. might help. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 07:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

ColinasCamorucoADOA

Copyvios despite warning. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week, all contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Estefano 2

Copyvios despite warning. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I deleted his all remaining uploads and blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)}}

Tcsg-0510

Hi,

Re-re-upload of deleted files without taking the time to provide permission. For example, this is the 3rd time that Tcsg-0510}} uploads File:Larissa Lowthorp Logo.png (two times with this name, one as File:LarissaLowthorpLogo.png). Please, block.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lacrymocéphale: It looks like this user has only been on Commons since the 20th. Rather than blocking, you should warn them about recreating deleted content and copyvios, which I have done. Blocking should be a last resort Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gbawden: You're right, he wasn't really helped. Thank you for the message you sent him. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. Copyvios stopped after Tcsg was warned. I'll delete all his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Abdul Rahman Bedo

And 197.47.165.108 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) as a bonus, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Escape block by Abdel Rahman Hany Muhamed (talk · contribs), same copyvios related to Tamer Hosny. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked and tagged all sockpuppets and created a sockpuppet category. Also deleted most uploads. Taivo (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Illegal documents

Clearly not here to contribute. Promotion of them being able to make counterfeit documents. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ indef Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Lipeh Spanic

✓ Done Blocked indef. 1989 (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Carsson Tan

Possible copyvio after block. see File:Christinna Kuan.jpg. Considering similar images here and here, which was posted in August and the uploader claimed the date to be today (24 Sep). I doubt it's own work. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a month. Let's see if that's enough time to read our policies. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Deathreport

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

Could somebody please check edits done by this account? That seems to be a sock of the banned user that keeps mentioning Antandrus on their posts. As I am not sure and not better aware of this edits patterns, I am asking someone else to confirm it. Thanks.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 03:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Teles: Possibly a sock of Wikinger. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 17:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

vandalism

Going around telling people ways to enlarge their penis. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
HinrichMittelmann account indef-blocked for spamming and both spam-edit hidden. --Túrelio (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Naanu simani

OOS files depsite warnings. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for 2 weeks. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

AkaSebo

Uploading license plates with bogus sources and licenses. Spam file names. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 17:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a month, and all files deleted. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 03:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Sdfgpoi---

Escape block by Lavili (talk · contribs), same uploads. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Indefblocked, nuked uploads. Sealle (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Actormonu

OOS files despite warnings. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 02:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for 2 weeks, and all files deleted. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 02:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Charlesjsharp

  • Charlesjsharp (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
  • {{:de:}} Der Benutzer gefällt sich darin, Voten auf QIC nachträglich zu verändern. Dabei setzt er mehrfach Abstimmungsergebnisse von "Promotion" auf "Nomination" zurück, ohne dabei ein "Contra" einzutragen. Er ändert das Abstimmungsergebnis aber auch nicht auf "Discuss", wie es die Regeln vorsehen [6], [7]. Grundsätzlich ist es mir egal ob eines meiner Fotos als "quality image" bewertet wird. Ich bin aber nicht bereit, mir dieses disruptive Verhalten und diesen Vandalismus weiter gefallen zu lassen. Ausgangspunkt dieses unkollegialen Verhaltens war, dass ich es gewagt hatte, am 10. September 2019 das Foto File:Chiffchaff (Phylloscopus collybita) Hungary.jpg negativ zu bewerten [8]. Als Rache schrieb er mir nur zehn Minuten danach bei mehreren Fotos negative Bewertungen mit abstruser Begründung [9], [10], [11] wobei er auch im letzten Fall einfach "Promotion" auf "Nomination" zurücksetzte. Dieses Verhalten, meine Kandidaturen schlecht zu machen, setzte er bis heute fort. Es geht mir nicht darum, dass der Benutzer, der viele gute und wertvolle Bilder hat, gesperrt wird, sondern darum, dass er sein disruptives, unkollegiales und schädliches Verhalten abstellt.
  • {{:en:}} The user likes to change votes on QIC afterwards. In doing so, he repeatedly sets voting results from "promotion" to "nomination", without entering a "contra". It does not change the voting result on "Discuss", as the rules provide [12], [13]. Basically, I do not care if one of my photos is rated as "quality image". But I'm not ready to let me continue this disruptive behavior and this vandalism. The starting point of this un-collegial behavior was that I had dared to give a negative rating to the photo File:Chiffchaff (Phylloscopus collybita) Hungary.jpg on 10 September 2019 [14]. As revenge he wrote only ten minutes later negative reviews for me on several photos with abstruse reason [15], [16], [17] and in the latter case he simply reset "Promotion" to "Nomination". This behavior, to make my candidacy bad, he continued until today. My concern is not that the user, who has many good and valuable images, will be banned, but that he will shut down his disruptive, un-compliant and harmful behavior.

Vielen Dank / Thank you --Steindy (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • If you check the history of my edits, I gave no negative ratings, just comments. This user had chosen to oppose a photo of a butterfly that rests on the ground by saying 'distracting background'. I could have ignored his ill-conceived comment but chose to note (not oppose) on a series of sports photos of his that they had distracting backgrounds. The QIC page (for some reason) automatically removes promoted status if a subsequent comment is made. I have just verified this on one of my own promotions. Steindy won't know this so has assumed the worst. No hard feelings, but you may wish to withdraw this accusation. Charles (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Steindy wird das nicht wissen... Aber Sie meinen es zu wissen und haben es trotzdem gemacht? Außerdem liegt die Verprflichtung bei Ihnen, zu überprüfen was Ihre Änderung bewirkt hat. Sie waren aber damit zufrieden, sich für mein Contra revanchiert zu haben, denn sonst hätte es Ihnen auffallen müssen.
  • Steindy will not know that ... But you mean to know and still have it? Also, the commitment is to check what your change has done. You would be content to have reciprocated for my contra, because otherwise you would have noticed. --Steindy (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Charles, I'm willing to suggest that your repeated conversion from Promotion to Nomination (several links above) was due to incompetence with the tools rather than malice. Can you please take more care not to disturb a promoted image. If you disagree with the promotion, then you know the next step is consensual review. Wrt the distracting background, I agree that File:Chiffchaff (Phylloscopus collybita) Hungary.jpg has a distracting background. Charles, I don't know why you are commenting on a "butterfly that rests on the ground" -- Steindy links to a bird photo. Was there another? I think calling this comment "ill-conceived" is rather rude and clearly has angered you towards making negative comments on the reviewers nominations. You claim you "gave no negative ratings" but you make negative comments. It is really bad form ("not cricket" to use an English expression) to react to a criticism by pointing out that the reviewer has made similar flaws in their own work. If you disagree with a review, politely point out you disagree and send it for consensual review. Your comments do very much look like revenge. Even if you didn't change status to decline, you did harm your reviewer's own nominations out of anger. -- Colin (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Charlesjsharp Und weil es nur ein Versehen war, brauchen Sie hier Ihren Mist nicht korrigieren?
And because it was just a mistake, do not you need to correct your crap here? --Steindy (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
already done, and 'crap' is offensive in English. Charles (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: You have nothing done. The nomination got a "pro" by user Granada [18] and a second "pro" by user Peulle [19] and stands now on "Nomination". --Steindy (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
You're right, sorry. I had changed two of your nominations back to promoted (which you failed to acknowledge) and now I've done the third. Perhaps you can apologise too for over-reacting? Charles (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I did not overreact, on the contrary. I watched for a long time, but your renewed provocation today brought the cask to overflowing. Anyway, I did not ask for a ban, but I just wanted an administrative speech so that you could stop your un-compliant behavior towards me. I have 45 years of semiprofessional photography experience and believe I can judge if a photo is good (including my own). Before I give a contra, I often look at a photo up to five times and also try to consider the circumstances (weather, light conditions, reproducibility etc.), because I am aware that it can hurt the photographer. --Steindy (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Done for me. Charlesjsharp has obviously seen and adjusted his behavior. After I did not want a lock anyway, but only a speech, that's enough for a completion. Regards --Steindy (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry  Not done! Ich ziehe die Erledigung zurück. Charlesjsharp schafft es einfach nicht, mich in Ruhe zu lassen. Es dauerte nur etwa 2,5 Stunden nach meinem obigen Erledigungsvermerk bis er auf QIC auftauchte und eine einzige Bewertung abgab, die ausgerechnet mich mit einer negativen Bewertung betraf [20]. Davor und danach gab er keine einzige Bewertung auf QIC ab, was seine Absicht klar erkennbar macht. Ich bin jetzt der Meinung, dass es leider ohne eine Sperre nicht geht, da er offensichtlich gezwungen sieht, sein disruptives und unkollegiales Verhalten fortsetzen zu müssen.
I withdraw the execution. Charlesjsharp simply can not manage to leave me alone. It only took me about 2.5 hours from my above notice until he turned up on QIC and cast a single vote, which was just me with a negative rating [21]. Before and after, he did not give a single rating on QIC, which makes his intent clear. I now think that unfortunately, without a lock, it is not possible, as he obviously feels forced to continue his disruptive and un-collegial behavior.
@Colin and Boothsift: as a discussion participant note. --Steindy (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I looked at the photo. It is very hard to tell motivation for sure. The review comment is appropriate, even if one may disagree about it. Charlesjsharp, I suggest you take a short break from reviewing Steindy's photos (and vice versa) until mutual annoyances with each other has subsided. Steindy, I don't personally hold QI in high regard, so I suggest you likewise not get too upset about it. -- Colin (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Charlesjsharp sternly warned. Please let us know if the harassment continues. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Threat is noted Sebari. As is your decision to allow Steindy to continue making comments on my nominations. Against Colin's suggestion. Colin, I see that although you reworked your screen images that Steindy had criticised on 21/9 and you posted a message on his talk page on 23/9, he has not commented further. Charles (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: I also asked Steindy not to comment on your photos on QI. I expect both of you to remain civil to each other and just leave each other alone on QI and elsewhere. Thanks! Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Charles (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@Srittau: My answer here. --Steindy (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Sebari I think you misread Charles' comment, which is understandable since it made little sense. He linked to pictures, rather than votes, and they are not pictures belonging to Charles. You seem to have interpreted this as a complaint about revenge negativity from Steindy, where in fact it is nothing of the sort. It seemed to be more some generally negative comment unrelated to this dispute and should be treated as such. I would ask you to avoid using the word "harrassment" on Commons, unless someone is engaging in activity for which you think a call to the police is required. In the UK, internet harassment is a criminal offence. What you are proposing is effectively an interaction ban on QI. I disagree with that. Interaction bans are IMO a lazy way of dealing with a problem and actually encourage unpleasant behaviour: if are unhappy with a reviewer then by behaving unpleasantly to them and provoking a complaint, you can engineer censorship of that reviewer. I only suggested that both take a short break from each other's work, and am glad that Steindy is doing so already. QI requires a judgement call, and anyone in a bad mood with another user is starting from a position of negativity. I don't care how mature/old/wise/experienced that person is, it is just human nature. Steindy, you wrote on my talk page an explanation of difficulties wrt sports photography. I'm afraid this is one of the problems with QI: your work may be assessed by a butterfly photographer who has zero experience taking sports photographs. I suggest you accept not all photographs will pass, and sometimes it is unfair. I note that there are two of my photographs that I asked you to re-review but you have not done so. Sometimes images fail at QI simply because nobody did the review. It isn't a perfect forum. -- Colin (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I did not mean "harassment" in any legal meaningful way in any jurisdiction. But it's a useful word in this context. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Sebari, just to clarify. I know you didn't. But the word has a legal meaning and should not be used for petty stuff like revenge voting at QI. It is unfortunate that Commons/Wiki has got into a habit of using it. Just imagine some future employer Googling a users name (and here the full name is on the page) and finding warnings from an admin about harassment. I think you should consider removing that word from his page and resolving to use alternative words. It is not a "useful word". -- Colin (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

นาฬิกาเรือนทอง and/or จันทร์ธาดา

Following the expiration of the block placed upon จันทร์ธาดา (talk · contribs), the user resumed activity under its own account and นาฬิกาเรือนทอง. According to this and this edit at Thai Wikipedia, the images are uploaded by นาฬิกาเรือนทอง but inserted into the page by จันทร์ธาดา. In view of the record of this user's conduct (Archive 78, Archive 79 on จันทร์ธาดา, and Archive 79 on แสงทองส่องหล้า), I believe the user do not and is not willing to understand the concept of copyright, and seems to have ignored the attempted conversation even in Thai Wikipedia and in Commons itself. --G(x) (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked and tagged all sockpuppets and created a sockpuppet category. Now I'm going to delete all copyvios. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

UltimoGrimm

UltimoGrimm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Removes deletion templates [22] [23] [24] [25], makes insults [26] [27]. --VLu (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You are crazy, the files is good!!--UltimoGrimm (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@UltimoGrimm: Please take it easy, and let an admin to handle the deletion requests. They will keep or delete it as required i guess, and may left a message to nominator if they did any mistake. Why we bother removing tags from the files ourselves when we can do many more. You both can be good friends. Try to do good interactions with each other. Please don't mind my words, if you feel like i am giving you some kind of lectures. Sorry in advance. Thank you for your understanding! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 03:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Reverted the template removal. Let the deletion request run its course. Otherwise, do nothing. If we blocked people for saying someone is crazy, it would become a very quiet place here. VLu and UltimoGrimm, try to play nice. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • However, I do think UltimoGrimm needs to start being more civil. When asked by Davey2010 to expand on his Remove vote for Jcb, UltimoGrimm replied "other users are against it without explanation, why do you ask explanations only to me? Don't play with me, it doesn't work". Gbawden (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Leticia Flores Prado

Copyvio after recent block release. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Any more and it will be indefinitely Gbawden (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Pbc.palestine

Copyvios after block release. See above report by Patrick. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked the user for a month (second block). Taivo (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

User:JESUS2004

User seems to keep uploading non-free files even after being banned for it in 2018. Some of this users current uploads also seem to be copyright violations although some might be ineligible for copyright protection as some are just text or simple shapes. CodeLyoko (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for 3 months. Next block will be indefinite. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 03:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Irisvalverde1

Continues copyvios despite 2 blocks. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a month. Next block will be indefinite. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 03:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Lolamelody123456

copyvios despite warnings. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Indef, nuked --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Abbas Arzoo

OOS file despite warning. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done OOS removed, user warned. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: Believed to have hopped over to Muhammad Abbas official, see File:OfficialAbbas.jpg. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 17:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked, nuked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234

I want to report some of the images Sportsfan had uploaded images of the 2015 Pan American Games opening ceremony from a TV broadcast. Sportsfan reverted edits despite it being removed due to copyright issues. I report one of the images of the ceremony Sportsfan uploaded because of copyright. I had recently removed the images because the TV broadcast of the ceremony is still under copyright by Pan Am Sports. Because Sportsfan uploaded so many pictures of the ceremony on Commons and placed them on Wikipedia, the user needs to be banned as soon as possible. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 Not done User hasn't been active on Commons since May 2018. If there are copyright violations, please file a deletion request. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Calvinkulit

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


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

This editor is currently indef blocked on the English Wikipedia. However, they are attempting to recruit Commons editors to edit for them by proxy on the English Wikipedia. Here are his attempts to circumvent his block by proxy:

So far only Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs) (stopped short of deleting images I tagged with "keep local") and Masumrezarock100 (talk · contribs) (who has continued to escalate the issue) have acted on his behalf, however this behavior is extremely disruptive and an obvious violation of his block. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Calvinkulit also solicited me. (fourth link) Guess what brah, I'm not sticking my head in this beehive. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed it, and warned Clavin. Masum Reza📞 09:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Calvin just screwed with my talk page. As far as I'm concerned, a block is in order. Duration I don't know. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe they wanted to withdraw their comments? It's disruptive but not vandalism. Masum Reza📞 09:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I honestly don't know if this is an apology or an admission of guilt for hiding evidence. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah,I should have noticed that. Well, whatever. Masum Reza📞 09:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
(ec)  Nothing to be done for now. Calvinkulit stopped their behavior and even reverted one of their requests after Masum Reza asked them to. I made it very clear that continuing this behavior will not be tolerated here on Commons. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I had already replied to the request, I don't appreciate it at all. Would have been fine if Calvin had only reverted himself, but it was too late for that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Understandable, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt (for now). Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
@Srittau: If Calvin meant to withdraw their comments, it's very strange they would only remove the request that was already clearly declined. Calvin didn't remove User talk:DannyS712#Can you do me a favour? which is unanswered. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, very strange indeed. But if they continue doing this, I will fully support a block. Masum Reza📞 09:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

A decision for this has been made. Please open a new discussion if they should continue to show unacceptable behavior. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Mr_Ostil

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

Self-promotion and uploading out of scope files. Please delete all of the files and pages created by them and block asap. Masum Reza📞 10:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Only joined today so a block is unwarranted. User warned and uploads deleted, lets see what happens Gbawden (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Jcb

User is now desysopped. 1989 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2019 (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.

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

Another thread about Jcb? But HOW??

Oh, yes. Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 4) has been closed by a Wikipedia admin (I'd trust that) and locked by 1989. Okay, fine. The actual removal will have to wait for a bureaucrat to double-verify there hasn't been any voting fraud. (there hasn't been any voting fraud. I checked)

Now, a gentleman (or any reasonable person really) would take this moment to sit back and reflect. Or something. Or upload some files, take up drinking, play darts, run a marathon, I don't know and I don't care.

Jcb, however.. Is going to milk this admin bit for all it's worth. He's deleted files after his Wikilaywering on meta and as we speak continues to do so.

I feel like a shitgibbon for asking to block Jcb, on the other hand, to continue using your tools after its been made utterly clear you have no right to them anymore is at least as shitgibbon-worthy. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Jcb, please stop using your admin tools or you will be blocked from editing until the stewards remove your tools. Natuur12 (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
If you block me, that's abuse of your tools. As long as a bureaucrat does not close this, I am still an admin. And as long as there is nothing wrong with the admin actions I do, there is no justification for emergency actions either. Jcb (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Nothing in our De-adminship policy requires a bureaucrat close. You insensible behavior unfortunately shows that to remove your admin bits was the right decision. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done (after edit conflict) I blocked Jcb. Is the block preventive? Yes, an unlicened driver will be taken off the road. Are you properly warned? Yes. Is blocking a last resort? Yes, you ignored my warming. Is your behavior potentially damaging to Commons? Yes, the community his tools away for a reason. Does this mean the block is compliant with the blocking policy? Yes it is. Since you ignored my warning you are now blocked from editing. Natuur12 (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunate but a necessary preventative act. Now Krd has stepped in, hopefully the block can be lifted within a few minutes. --Fæ (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2019 (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.

William righi

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

Abuse of multiple accounts: same uploads as Otelmar (talk · contribs). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Otelmar and William righi was never blocked Ezarateesteban 22:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Abbos700770

Abbos700770 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Seems to keep uploading non-free images and immediately reuploaded a copyrighted logo after it being deleted for a copyright violation. CodeLyoko (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked Abbos for a month. Taivo (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

ŠMotorsport

Copyvios despite warning. + Unverified account that suggests the representation of škoda Motorsport/Auto.大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Ruyblas13

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.

Can somebody proficient in French talk to him? He's uploaded about a thousand files in the past three years, a significant portion might need to be deleted. He's uploaded his own photos under a CC-license, but also a large number of old photographs. A fair few might be public domain, but this is hard to tell since a date of publication is missing with most of them. He seems to think that "old enough to be public domain" applies to photographs from the '40's, which simply isn't the case if the author is unknown. There is also some OSM maps that aren't properly attributed. Vera (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done — Racconish 💬 10:38, 27 September 2019 (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.

Shahdag

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.
Copyvios despite warnings. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Was previously blocked for uploading copyvios, indef now. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2019 (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.

Block User:Hotelrudram

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.

Spam-only account, see userpage. Promotional username (violates COM:IU). -- CptViraj (📧) 13:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI I deleted the User Page as it was SD'd under U3/G10 Gbawden (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Nuked and blocked indef. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 Thank you. -- CptViraj (📧) 03:06, 29 September 2019 (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.

Hongkytran

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.
Copyvio despite warning. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done One week block for now. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2019 (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.

A1Cafel

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.

A1Cafel (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

  • Five days ago, this user came to my Talk page to advise me to use Flickr2Commons to upload images from Flickr. At first I did not understand the reason, but I thanked him or her. A bit later I concluded it must have had connection to duplicate files, files A1Cafel had uploaded short after I uploaded the same. I was not pleased to see my (earlier) uploads deleted because they were tagged duplicates and I asked A1Cafel to always tag the most recent upload as duplicate. Just now, I find that A1Cafel tagged some 25 files in Category:Global climate strike in Sydney 20 September 2019, that I uploaded over a week ago, as duplicate of his or her uploads of today, meaning that again my uploads will be deleted in favor of A1Cafel's later uploads. So A1Cafel first thinks I should be reproached for my method of uploading, without mentioning the cause, then I ask A1Cafel not to have earlier copy's deleted in favor of his or her own, and still this user goes on. I ask for this user to get a warning for unfriendly and unjustifiable behavior.

Thank you, Eissink (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC).

I just noticed it is not a single (or double, in this case) mistake – or 'inconvenience' – because some fifty files like this, from another uploader, uploaded over a week earlier, are treated the same way by A1Cafel. I fear there is a pattern, not just a mistake because of 'busy work'. In user's contributions history I do not see examples of taggings that are correct. Tagged images are deleted and I don't know how to check the further history. I ask administrators to have a closer look at the operational style, at the style of conduct of A1Cafel. Eissink (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC).

 Comment The duplicate must be deleted, not the first upload by Eissink or other users. Maybe Eissink can give examples? If it are really fifty files, A1Cafel has to be more careful and if he/she continues, I suggest a moderator will block A1Cafel. (this is my opinion, first show some links) - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I gave examples, but will sum them up here:
As a regular user, I can not see if and how many times this has happened, since reference to the tagging gets deleted from user's contributions when the file is deleted. Eissink (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC).
@Túrelio: Daniel Mietchen's uploads were older and had a better filename. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note that Flickr2Commons sometimes doesn't detect Commons duplicates. I've noticed it as well. And I'd like to point out that some of my uploads were (are) duplicates because of this bug. The problem is with the Flickr2Commons itself. It doesn't really matter which one's upload is going to be deleted. Masum Reza📞 12:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
According to Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#F8 "the generally accepted rule is to delete the newer duplicate", so you seem to be holding rather a minority view here. Needless to say that I don't agree with you, at all. If Flickr2Commons is indeed erring here, that problem should not be migrated to users who have nothing to do with that and just happened to have spend their time uploading the same file earlier. Eissink (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC).
I agree with Eissink, no further explanation needed. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@A1Cafel: (and everyone else): When using {{Duplicate}}, please try to tag the newer file per Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#F8. That said, Commons is not a popularity contest of who uploaded the most files, so occasionally deleting an older file is not the end of the world. With that said, this should be ✓ Done. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so far, but I think you act and think a bit too light and easy. Of course it is not a contest, but I don't want to repeatedly have notifications on my watchlist when someone decides a file I uploaded should be deleted because he or she uploaded a duplicate (if the more recent uploader tags the recent files, I don't get a notice of course). I'm a bit disappointed that you think it's not a problem that users using a disfunctioning upload device are basically wasting my time and attention. It should be clear as can be that the earlier uploader should not be harassed in any way, which is achieved when the oldest copy remains where it is, which is the honourable way anyhow. Don't people have any manners anymore? Eissink (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC).
I will note that I have brought this to the user's attention before, see User_talk:A1Cafel/Archive_3#Hurricane_Barry_Rescue_Duplicate. The problem seems to arise when the Flickr file has a nonsensical name, so a user changes the default name to conform with Commons guidelines. A1Cafel tends to stick to the default Flickr file name, and the Flickr2Commons uploader doesn't catch it. I don't think we need to make a big deal of this. MarginalCost (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The example you give is from July and still A1Cafel keeps on deleting the older files in favor of his own nonsensical-named later uploads. What is not problematic about that? And I am also not amused that A1Cafel came to me making it seem like I have a problem and I should alter my conduct. If that user wants to change his style of working and communicating, sure, then it's no big deal anymore, but if this continues I do think it is quite a problem. Eissink (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC).

User has been warned to change their behavior. No more administrative action required at this point. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2019 (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.

Virendra Vikram Mani Pandey

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.

Spam only account, not here to contribute. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked Ezarateesteban 20:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Sock blocked also indefinitely, all spam reverted or deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2019 (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.

Mohammed Galib Hasan

Copyvios after block release. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
While I am absolutely not a fan of the type of mass uploading that user is doing, there seems to be a relatively small amount of copyright violations, considering the number of uploaded files. All seem to be falling under COM:DW and COM:FOP problems. I believe educating the user is a better approach. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Rcurra

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.
Copyvios despite warnings. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done One week block for now. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2019 (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.

Александр Мотин

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.

In this discussion in next diff user has come to personal attacks on other discussion participant - "what you are doing now with others is called sabotage" and "I don't have to read someone's fabrications". Alex Spade (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done this does not rise to the level of block. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:50, 29 September 2019 (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.

Raoney

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.
Copyvio despite warnings and block. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 10:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Indef. Last uploaded file was also a reupload of a previously deleted file. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2019 (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.

Lucas Eduardo Dudu

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.
Copyvios despite warning. Adding bogus licenses. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 29 September 2019 (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.

Vandalism and bad faith from User:Tm

Alright this is going nowhere and two admins' requests for examples have gone unheeded. This is a collaborative project. Everyone here is expected to work together, to not edit war, and to have collegiate discussions when the need arises not go running to the admin noticeboard every time something contentious happens. Mellow out people. --Majora (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2019 (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.

User:Tm has a long history of bad faith contributions and harassment, and has been blocked from Commons in the past. There were many entries on their talk page noting this, but some have recently been removed by Tm (see history and changelog of the User Talk page). They are involved in several current deletion nomination discussions to "keep" content that has already been noted as contentious, and overwhelm the discussion with extensive and rambling text that is often not factual. Many of these discussions have an anonymous IP 68.194.210.136 for "keep" that may be a sockpuppet. They have also recently reverted many constructive contributions to the categorization of imagery. Management of this user's bad faith behaviour is necessary to maintain the integrity of Commons as an information resource. Please advise. - Seazzy (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Seazzy: hey, I rolled back your edit. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Alex Jazz: , do not roll back constructive additions to files. Please read category descriptions before removing them from a file. -Seazzy (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Seazzy: 1. Go back to school. My name is Alexis. 2. What the crap are you talking about? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
What are your concrete complaints? Tm is taking part in contentious discussions. That is what discussions are for. I have no idea why you assume that the IP is Tm, especially since the DRs have multiple people discussing. And for the claimed revertions, we need links to be able to understand what the problem is. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Now I see the disruption. Starting 15 nearly identical DRs, forcing me to copy-paste my  Keep to 15 pages, for files that were already kept in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology without providing new arguments. You want my advice Seazzy? Stop starting DRs. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The disruption is Tm's removal of descriptive categories from several images, and then deleting a warning on his talk page. User Tm has a history of acting in bad faith, and his undos cannot be assumed as constructive. Your hostility and clear unwillingness to take complaints seriously is deeply concerning in an admin. - Seazzy (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
People are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page. And unless you start adding links to examples that show what you are complaining about I'm gonna close this without action. Diffs or it didn't happen. --Majora (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for identifying the wrong user. I will recategorize the images and open a new complaint in the event the categories are removed. -Seazzy (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2019 (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.

Socks

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.

Hello, Could an admin please indef Astraboy1999, Astra1999 and Liftboy1999Astra as they're all one person,
First and second accounts are indeffed at EN however they've come back to EN as Lftboy and are reinserting their images (basically continuing their disruptive behaviour),
I would hope indeffing all 3 might put a stop to them and their uploads/edits,
Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done All indeffed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks Rodhullandemu much appreciated :), Enjoy the rest of your day :), –Davey2010Talk 16:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Cjackh

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.

Please check this and alter the user:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cjackh&oldid=301625673

Editor-1 (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand, what's problem with the files. The user hasn't edited since January, so blocking is not needed. Taivo (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done user page deleted. Vulgar language was the issue Gbawden (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2019 (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.

YUBINTHAIFAN

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.
Copyvio after warning. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 3 days Gbawden (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2019 (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.

FormsForHospitals

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.
Promo only. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2019 (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.

Abbas_Arzoo

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.

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

Uploading OOS images after warnings. Masum Reza📞 15:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked Abbas for a month (second block). All uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2019 (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.

Mirza.parsa.rashidi

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.

Continues copyvios after block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Blocked for a month (second block). Uploads are mostly deleted, I nominated one for deletion. Taivo (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2019 (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.

М. Омельчук

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.

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

Copyvio after 3 month block. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 6 month by Elcobbola. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2019 (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.

Dacosta 3

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.

Dacosta 3 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvio after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Dacosta for a week. Still a lot of his uploads need to be deleted and I am going to work on that. Taivo (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2019 (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.

Same person?

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.
Pokemon29 uploaded File:Paper Tales Logo.png (fair use), 85.26.232.152 tagged it as copyvio with source. 188.32.110.178 proceeds to remove it, and have an edit war with 85.26.232.152. After a while, I tagged the file as fair use, PokemonMan2999 proceeded to remove it. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 07:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that PokemonMan2999 added a DR template to 188.32.110.178's TP. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 07:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
In addition it seems to me, that 188.32.110.178 and 85.26.232.152 are actually the same person who has edit war with himself. Both are blocked, both appealed, I declined both appeals. I blocked both Pokemons indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Tafhim tahsin50

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.

This user keeps uploading copyright violations. Castillo blanco (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week. Last remaining uploads are nominated for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2019 (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.

ManoSolo13241324

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.

ManoSolo13241324 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvio after warnings. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked ManoSolo for a week. Taivo (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2019 (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.

Kirilloparma

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.

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

Continues copyvio after warnings. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyvios despite warnings. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry? Why "continues"? I have never uploaded any copyrighted file since I received warnings. Honestly, I don't understand and have no idea what is going on. @Yuraily Lic: Could you please explain what I'm doing wrong, if I don't uploaded nothing anymore? All problem files was uploaded on August 2019, since then, I have not uploaded any file that probably copyrighted ... Sincerely. Kirilloparma (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I changed the description. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 Not done. Seems like incorrect request, nothing should be done. Taivo (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2019 (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.

Sunnyparekh36

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.
Copyvios despite warnings. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2019 (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.

Ayoub El Wardi

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.

Everything is copyvio + removes deletion templates. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

sorry ☹️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayoub El Wardi (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Comment uploader seemed to have removed all no permission tags. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 03:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2019 (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.

194.152.235.95

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.

Some lack of mellow in these contibutions. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done three day block. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2019 (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.

Swot Business

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.
Promo only. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked Swot indefinitely. All uploads are nominated for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2019 (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.

Jamie.blackley FP

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.
Reuploading deleted content without permission from/at source. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I warned the user. He has no deleted contributions, so "reuploading deleted content" is doubtful. At moment, no block is needed. Now I am going to delete his copyvios (license review failed). Taivo (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Taivo: Ah yes, my bad. Thanks :) 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:21, 3 October 2019 (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.

EugeneZelenko's strange rationales for deletion requests

This has gone on long enough. There is nothing wrong with creating DRs for images that appear to be outside COM:SCOPE. Many files have obvious educational or historic value even if unused, such as notable people or buildings at various times. For files where this value is not obvious (in particular, logos and other files than may have been uploaded for promotional purposes) that are not in use, a DR is a completely reasonable way to determine whether a file is actually worth having on Commons. Files may be used on external sites for various promotional, identification, or aesthetic reasons - yet not belong on Commons because they lack educational/historic value or uses on Wikimedia projects.

@EugeneZelenko: While your DRs are usually reasonable, you should clarify how the file is out of scope, or otherwise does not belong on Commons. (In particular, "Should be in SVG if useful" or "trivial logo" alone are not deletion rationales - you need to specify why the files lack value.) Do be more careful to avoid cases like the incarceration rates file where files actually have legitimate value.

@Alexis Jazz: My patience with you is wearing very, very thin. This was a discussion that should have started at the user's talk page, and could likely have been resolved smoothly if you took a different course. But instead of treating this project as a collaborative effort, and asking them to be more careful and more clear when filing DRs, you have positioned yourself as their adversary - a frequent habit of yours. Snarky comments on DRs are not a useful way to have a discussion. I strongly suggest that you avoid filing AN reports (except for issues needing immediate intervention) unless you have made actual effort to resolve problems through less-confrontational venues, and to stay out of AN discussions that do not involve you. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2019 (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.

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

User starts many DRs with these canned arguments:

  • "Unused"
  • "Should be in SVG if useful"
  • "trivial" (like "trivial logo")
  • "Questionable notability"

Unused is no reason for deletion, besides, you don't know if external sites are using it. It's not really relevant: a file in widespead use that is a copyvio still gets deleted. A file not being in SVG format is also irrelevant. Are you uploading SVG files for these Eugene? No? Not an argument then. The argument "trivial" seems to be nothing but a weasel word to downplay the importance of any given file. It means literally nothing. Why is the word even there?

But the main issue is "questionable notability". And that's an issue because EugeneZelenko has no idea what is notable. Or rather, EugeneZelenko thinks that anything EugeneZelenko has never heard of is of questionable notability. w:pt:A Fazenda 11? Questionable notability. w:Los Angeles Force? Questionable notability. w:Incarceration in the United States? Questionable notability. w:fa:عشاق (مقام موسیقی)? Questionable notability. w:Handball Club Toronto? Questionable notability.

Eugene has been told repeatedly their arguments are invalid, some examples:

And in that last one I asked Eugene to actually respond to this issue. And all I got was a general "read COM:SCOPE". No, you read COM:SCOPE. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I think "use it or lose it" is good enough rule for trivial logos and diagrams, especially if they are in not best format. Commons could not host every possible file in this world. And should every user who are not agree with you about Commons policies file complain about your on this page? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: Here we go again with the "trivial". It's a weasel word. It means nothing. Anything and nothing can be trivial. And since when did "use it or lose it" become policy? And what difference does the format even make? Some logo that is out of scope but in SVG format is still out of scope. It doesn't matter. And you're dodging the "questionable notability". This is not about disagreement over COM:SCOPE. This is about you making up what COM:SCOPE says. Unused is no argument, your preference for SVG is no argument, "trivial" is a weasel word and you don't appear to be doing any kind of research (beyond asking yourself "have I ever heard of this?", which isn't research!) to substantiate the "questionable notability" claim. Questionable notability could be an argument if, for example, you did the research and found a logo belongs to some local boy scouts club that never made the news. Fine. But you're not doing any research. All I'm asking is: when you start a DR, provide valid arguments for deletion. If you can't and you have to resort to weasel words and IDONTLIKEIT, just don't start a DR. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Next time when you would want to throw stones in other person, please try to reflect on own behavior: this particular request is exactly result of IDONTLIKEIT. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: this is a very strange way to refer to the wikt:cast the first stone idiom. Also, it's wrong. You start deletion requests because you don't like certain files. They didn't come in your favorite file format, you've never heard of them, they mean nothing to you, so let's pile up on the DR queue. This request instead is not started because I don't like your DRs, I started it because they lack proper motivation. If you start DRs with rationales like "Logo likely exceeds the TOO", "logo of a local boy scouts club", "failed attempt to upload fair use content to Wikipedia" or even "Logo uploaded for Wikipedia article which got deleted" (not always a reason to delete the logo here, but I won't beat you up over it. use with caution though), we wouldn't be having this conversation. And that would be better for everyone. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Commons could not host a DR for every possible file in this world, either. The cost of a DR often seems to be more than that of keeping the file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Please suggest better maintenance process for such cases. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay. If you have no rationale other than gut feelings about scope, don't start a DR and leave the file be. If there are copyright issues or tangible scope issues, start a DR. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I see no problems with Eugene's rationales. The word "trivial" could be interpreted as "non-notable". An unused file is more likely to be deleted than one already in use, for the simple reason that an image in main-space use is automatically considered within scope. From what I can see, the term "questionable notability" simply means that the issue is open for discussion - which is, I assume, the reason why we have a deletion process in the first place. AshFriday (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what your primary language is, but most people would interpret "questionable notability" as Eugene having done some kind of research that suggests the subject is not notable. wikt:questionable does not refer to the third (obsolete!) meaning of "Inviting questions; inviting inquiry", in this context it will generally be seen as the second meaning: "Of dubious respectability or morality". If that's not what EugeneZelenko meant, he should change the wording for future DRs. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the critical mind here. Almost all their DR's have to be deleted (and are deleted), and the rest is at least clarified why the files should be kept. It's a very useful maintenance job. It could be an issue if Eugene was nominating again and again the files that have been already kept. There is no issues here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Wrong on all accounts, Christian Ferrer, and that’s exactly the problem that will be hopefully be deal here now, finally. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not saying the files Eugene nominates shouldn't be deleted. There may be some reason for deletion. For example, File:Los Angeles Force Logo.png was an attempt to upload a fair use file to Wikipedia. That would have been sufficient as a rationale. But EugeneZelenko didn't use that. All I say is that Eugene should provide valid arguments for deletion. At least be honest. If Eugene would nominate files saying "Unused Currently unused on sister projects trivial IDONTLIKEIT logo of questionable notability I have personally never heard of, but I didn't look it up. Should be in SVG if useful. I would like it if someone asked Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop to make an SVG out of this." that would be better. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) We get frequently logos that were intended for articles that are after the creation speedied as being promotional or of insufficient notability. Such logos are often assumed to be out of COM:SCOPE and consequently deleted if unused. When this DR was opened, the logo wasn't in use yet. In case of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by آزادسرو we have uploads like this one where essential information is missing that would help to evaluate whether {{PD-Iran}} indeed applies, i.e. there is no information in regard to the life span of the author nor any information about how and when this was published before. And just a link to the source website is included but not a direct link to the source itself. These infos are still missing, so please do not be surprised to see these files nominated again until this is fixed. At Commons we have restrictions in regard to files in PDF format, see Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats. We should encourage uploaders to create diagrams like File:US Incarceration Rates in 2016.pdf as SVGs instead as PDFs. Of course, it was correct to keep it as en:wp import which was subsequently used as a base of a SVG file. Please keep in mind that we see at Commons a lot of pretty useless uploaded PDFs with text written by the uploader and possibly with elements which were derived from somewhere else. Occasionally, deletion requests help to discuss and clarify this. In summary, I do not see a problem in any of the listed DRs. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, speedied articles do not leave much traces (in some projects there is not even a notice given) and without admin rights in the other projects you cannot verify this. Hence, it is common to assume that unused logos are unused because of such a failed attempt to create an article if the uploader has very few edits throughout all projects (8 edits in the example above). EugeneZelenko has explained this above and this is indeed common practice at Commons. We do not pile up all sorts of crap at Commons, COM:SCOPE exists. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@AFBorchert: I never said we should. Though it is actually better to keep 9 "crap" files if that prevents one useful file from being deleted due to carelessness. Also, it can be easy to tell in typical cases. Just follow your own link: Wikicrazy95 has 8 edits, 5 on Commons and 3 on ptwiki. So presumably they wanted to use the logo on ptwiki. Click, and you see.. three edits. Which means none of them have been deleted. If there were less, you'd know something was deleted. But if any of this is caused by technical limitations, seek to improve those. Don't take shortcuts on the assumption of uploaders being n00bs or spammers. This whole "use it or lose it" mentality also endangers Commons as a free media repository. If I upload something that's in scope and properly licensed to use it on my educational blog (Commons allows hotlinking, not by accident!) or a non-WMF wiki through mw:InstantCommons, it may get deleted because it doesn't appear to be in use here. That's.. bad. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:46, 4 October 2019 (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.

Charmi004

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.
Copyvio after block release. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:53, 1 October 2019 (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.

Pewdiepie12321

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.
Copyvios desptie warning. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 03:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Blocked for a week. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 05:46, 4 October 2019 (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.

Lucas Eduardo Dudu

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.
Copyvio after block release. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 03:54, 4 October 2019 (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.

Rongboun

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.
Reuploading deleted content without permission. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done 3 days. — Racconish 💬 08:18, 4 October 2019 (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.

YUBINTHAIFAN

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.
Flickr washing, blocked once for uploading unfree files. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked one week. — Racconish 💬 07:07, 4 October 2019 (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.

NIH History Office Images

I moved some images from NIH History Office Flickr stream to Wikimedia Commons. The category of images uploaded by me can be found here. This category mostly contains images of notable scientists who worked at NIH, most of whom have Wikipedia pages or Wikidata entries. There are some images of historical buildings and documents too. These images are automatically marked as 'unknown copyright status' by using the following template {{FlickreviewR|status=public_domain_mark}}. These images are indeed in public domain because NIH is the author of these images, and these images are taken in the USA. Please remove the copyright tag and indicate the license as public domain for all the images under this category. Thanks and regards, --Netha Hussain (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Added {{PD-USGov-NIH}} to all of them. You could do that yourself. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

SVG tooltips

Request for updating the logo of SKEMA Business School

Admin not needed here. Consider taking it to COM:VP — Racconish 💬 08:43, 4 October 2019 (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.

Dear admins,

The logo of SKEMA Business School on its page is old/outdated. Could you update it, please? Here is the link to the new logo. It has been obtained from the school's marketing team:

File:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SKEMA_Business_School%27s_logo.png

Thanks in advance.

Best, Sarthak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wander Writer (talk • contribs) 14:56, 19 September 2019 (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.

Incnis Mrsi has been indefblocked by 1989

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.

I think the indefblocking of a user who has contributed as much as Incnis Mrsi shouldn't happen without any discussion.

1989 has blocked Incnis Mrsi. No obvious reason has been given, so I had to look at 1989's contributions. The reason appears to be [32] [33] [34]. Andy Dingley is somehow involved and Túrelio would be the deleting admin. These comments don't seem all that indefblock-worthy? Not really mellow, but.. indefblock? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@ Alexis Jazz Yes, reason for block has been given. Says in the block log. --VKras (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

They were given chances between warnings, a week block, and a sanction to stay away from AN boards for six months. They still manage to treat users with disrespect. Before my block, they are currently blocked on Meta for a year and enwiki for a month. They managed to spread their toxicity to other places. Users like this imo should not contribute here unless they are willing to treat users who do the best in their ability to make good faith actions with respect. From their actions after many attempts to tell them their behavior is unacceptable, they refuse to listen. 1989 (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose unblock --VKras (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@VKras: This is not a vote. Without any arguments, your comment has little value. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@ Alexis Jazz I think the best way to prevent Incnis Mrsi from lying and harassment is to keep them blocked indefinitely. This user ignores warnings and fails to change. There is simply no stop. Look at their messages. --VKras (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

VKras, you keep claiming they're a liar. What did they lie about? Regards, Vermont (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding user Alpenmaus, the account is currently subject to an SPI over at the English Wikipedia. When I noticed Incnis Mrsi recents talk page notices here at Commons, I wasn't very pleased about their tone and style either, but I thought that Túrelio was able to handle this himself. I did, however, request a checkuser for Alpenmaus because of this. De728631 (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • IMHO indeffing does seem excessive here (if their block log was long as your arm I could understand), Reduce block to 6 months for the AN violation, If it continues after the block expires then reblock for a year ... if it continues after a year then bring it here asking for Indef, –Davey2010Talk 20:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010: AN violation? What'd I miss? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 78#Topic ban User:Incnis Mrsi from participating in ANs --Majora (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: I know about that, but it makes no sense to "Reduce block to 6 months for the AN violation" now. It suggests there has been a new AN violation just now, which I'm unaware of. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
My apologies, Having relooked at their contribs it would appear I made an error somewhere and that there was no AN violation here so my apologies for that, I still feel the block was excessive (2 weeks would've been better). –Davey2010Talk 09:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Blocking of this kind is not good. IMO:
  1. A sysop when questioned should state which edits violated which policies.
  2. Blocks based on socalled civility issues should receive some consensus rather than one sysop's view.
  3. Blocking him/her from user talk by the same sysop who blocked does not look good either.
User:1989 might be blocking ppl too fast. I didnt find Yann's recent block good either.--Roy17 (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
If Andy Dingley is "somehow involved" with this, then he ought to be banned too. 82.132.230.118 14:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • As it is on all projects, indefinite does not mean infinite. It would be helpful here if User:1989 could provide a specific list of grievances that could be addressed in order to achieve good standing again. I would also note that indefinite blocks, in unclear cases, and for long term contributors, are generally the remit of the community, at least here on Commons, and in the absence of that, the onus is on the "blocker" to make their case for review. GMGtalk 23:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
They need to stop acting like they are above everyone, and treat users with respect they deserve. I was willing to discuss with them while being blocked solutions. I could of reduced or undone the block if we had a conversation. Instead, they accused me of having a grudge and saw nothing wrong with that they recently posted. That tells me that they are not willing to cooperate so imo time should not be wasted on users like this. 1989 (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Just looking at their recent edits and edit summaries, their long-standing attitude problem has gotten worse. While this was perhaps a sudden block, sometimes it is necessary to have sudden and lengthy blocks for chronically toxic users. I will oppose any unblock unless Incris Mrsi is willing to admit to their problematic behavior, and agree to specific changes. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Noting that Incnis Mrsi is blocked on other projects, including Meta and the English Wikipedia, for similar issues. Vermont (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree with (and have undone) 1989's rollback on Túrelio's talk page. We have to be able to tell an admin their deletion was "a blatant misuse of speedy". Regardless of whether or not Incnis was right (I have no idea honestly), we must be able to criticize admins without fear of being rolled back or blocked. Even if the accusation isn't very mellow, I believe freedom of speech is more important in this case. I have also undone 1989's rollback on Incnis Mrsi's talk page, but I censored that partially. I'm on the fence about the parts I censored, but those parts didn't contribute much to the overall message in a meaningful way. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I got a mail from Incnis Mrsi through Wiktionary. I find it nice to see they checked my contributions over there. I won't quote anything from the mail as it's personal, but my general impression is that Incnis Mrsi is not terribly interested in coming back at the moment due to severe concerns over the governance of Commons. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this is a good block and no reason to overturn it. If anything need to be done; that should be a global ban discussion. Few things to note:
    1. The user is currently blocked on Meta for 6 months for incivility/rudeness. [35]
    2. Blocked on English Wikipedia for a month because of harassment/personal attacks. [36]
    3. And now blocked on Commons for the same intimidation/harassment that got them blocked by other communities. [37]
    4. Previously blocked on Commons for Intimidation/harassment. [38]
  • Also worth noting, apart from the fact that all the three communities cannot be wrong in assessing their conduct this is not a new behavior neither a temporary lack of competence. It's a part of a long history of the user's uncollegiality and failure to heed warning.
    1. They were blocked on Russian Wikipedia as per back as 2007 for the same incivility and harassment. [39]
    2. Blocked again repeatedly in 2009, for "unethical behavior", rudeness, [40]
    3. In 2014, the changed habit to editwarring (another bad habit) and blocked also repeatedly [41]

If a user is uncivil/attack others since 2007, it's quite clear it did not start today and it's part of their personal comportment. We cannot change them. Deluge of warnings across projects did not, neither multitude of blocks outlined above. They unfortunately cannot amicably collaborate with others and their behavior is antithesis to Wikimedia collaboration, in fact to any meaningful collaboration. I believe it's time for them to move on and I would recommend a global ban to help them disengage. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I also  Oppose unblocking, as their toxicity and incivility have only gotten worse over the years. I agree with removal of TPA, as their last message did nothing to address the reasons for the block or proposed changes, and did not include {{Unblock}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This alone warrants a block. And generally I don't find Incnis Mrsi's "contributions" in any way outweigh the harassment and incivility they bring to the project. That they are gone is a net positive. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I will say this: "How about this account gets globally locked". Warnings simply do not help. I do not object this user losing email access and if this is revoked, they will have no remaining options of requesting unblock. How about this user's ban from participating at AN/U be extended to indefinite and be banned from participating on all 3 pages that are part of AN/U forever. For example, what about the word 'garbage' in file history '14:56, 27 August 2019' on File:Walter Hood Fitch01.jpg. This file is not garbage in any way, but not sure why he has said it. He has used angry language. --VKras (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not think a global lock is appropriate at this time. Vermont (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Vermont If he will engage in further cross-wiki harassment and/or intimidation, then global lock might be necessary. I don't really support global lock. Local block should simply be enough. --VKras (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
It doesn’t appear to me to be crosswiki harassment. Rather, it’s uncivil conduct on multiple projects, not related to each other. Crosswiki harassment would be if, say, after being blocked on one project for being rude to someone, he went to another project specifically to annoy that user. Vermont (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Emailing Alexis via another wiki is cross-wiki.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but that is not harassment. Contacting someone on another project, so long as the recipient is okay with it, is not problematic. Vermont (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, Incnis didn't harass me in that mail. (more like the opposite) I oppose a global lock. I know from experience that different communities within WMF have very different philosophies and governance. English Wiktionary is generally more strict, English Wikipedia has the most complex governance, Dutch Wikipedia is far more direct (anyone can start a de-adminship discussion at any time), Commons is quite open to adopting new things and protecting free speech but has issues with its governance, Wikidata only has a fairly basic governance (content-related conflicts are less common due to the nature of the project) and Dutch Wikinews will welcome almost anyone because the project lacks active members. (or at least it did some time back.. I have to admit I'm not spending a lot of time there. maybe I should) So Incnis Mrsi may not yet have found the project that's best for them. And as Incnis Mrsi is capable of contributing in a meaningful way, I think the positive of the possiblity that they eventually will find the project that's right for them outweighs the cost of possibly a few more communities blocking them. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The direct link for that "garbage" description in an Edit Summary is here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The context is «upscaled garbage» being replaced with «actual pixels», not a personal attack in any way. This quote doesn’t showcase this user’s typical grouchy posture (as if it was hard to find actual examples!), and if disparaging technical aspects of our imagery was a blockable offense there would be almost none of us left.
I should say that, although I did have a few skermishes with this user in the past, his uncouth language, while deplorable at times, never really bothered me much — and certainly not at all as does the possibility that a user like me can be suddenly disappeared like this, under flimsy pretenses, which is gravely frightening and distressing. And it is provenly flimsy, as at the same time an admin is facing desysopping due to much more severe impoliteness and yet otherwise perfectly reasonable admins are rushing to “save” him. This lionising of the admin position and the discretionary power held over simple users combined with the double standard that’s running rampant — that’s what should be addressed in terms of making Commons a safe online space, which is not achieved by the gagging of random fangless foulmouths. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
On a more general note, I personally encourage productive toxicity. People in Hong Kong protesting in the streets is obviously highly toxic and not MELLOW, and I encourage it wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, a fair bit of Incnis' toxicity doesn't appear to be very productive. What I'm saying is: we have to be extremely careful not to silence the critics citing MELLOW and toxicity when they have a point. But if someone is consistently attacking people who don't deserve it or disrupting the project, we can't accept that either. This isn't easy. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
"We should decorate this user with a life ban necklace." This isn't much better than what Incnis said about you. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
If this equates an administrative action with necklacing, which is my genuine first reading of the words used, then it is extremely hostile, to a level of abuse that is unacceptable for any Commons discussion per COM:BP. @T Cells: please consider redacting the phrase you used, if this was not your intention. --Fæ (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
That wasn't my intention of course. The phrase is now redacted. Sorry I missed your ping. Regards. T CellsTalk 16:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

When will this section be closed? --VKras (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@VKras: not for a while now, your reply delayed its archiving. I'm a little worried about Incnis. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Alexis Jazz Why and how exactly is my reply delaying its archiving? --VKras (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@VKras: Threads get archived after 7 days without new replies. There hadn't been new replies for 4 days. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment "Indef" does not mean "ban". I would recommend @Incnis Mrsi: take some time out to consider if they want to come back and be seen to contribute to Commons without providing evidence for others to claim they are being disruptive. An unblock request in 3 months time should be taken seriously. With regard to being blocked on other projects, Wikimedia Commons benefits from being a less dramatic and less cliquish Wikimedia project than others, which includes a healthy track record of not judging contributors by allegations of what happens elsewhere; any unblock request should be considered on its own merit and based on the most recent patterns of evidence on Commons. The one week block has jumped to indef and user talk page access being removed is unusual. It would be nice to see the talk page access restored after a cooling off period, so that unblock requests might be discussed, unless it is being misused for serious harassment (which this diff was not, despite this being the apparent rationale for talk page access removal). Admins, let's keep a light and dispassionate hand on the buttons please, especially when considering removing a user talk page access. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Was Incnis' user page actually deleted at any point? I had looked into it and couldn't find any evidence. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:174.4.54.53

Is obsessed with a Justin Bieber image, ignores warnings, needs some weeks timeout. --Denniss (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Jamie.blackley FP

reuploading deleted content. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

アイドルは神様です

Continues copyvios despite warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Joseph.martin3

Continues copyvio after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for one week. Jianhui67 T★C 13:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 Comment I nuked all his uploads. Too many mixed cameras and files from 2003 uploaded in 2019 for them to realistically be his own work given his record Gbawden (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Beksg00

Copyvios despite warning. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 04:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked 3 days. — Racconish 💬 05:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Tfm1234

Out of scope files despite warnings and block. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Calvinkulit 2

✓ Done For reference, I blocked this user for one week. They keep violating our policies. After being warned about one certain aspect, they start violating some other policy. They are also being weird to users that interacted with them, like User:Masumrezarock100 and User:Alexis Jazz. I hope their behavior improves after the break. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I am suddenly reminded of Eltomas2003 (specifically I eat bananas 101), though I'm not sure. It's probably nothing, but I'm making a note just in case. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Lol, the last one's username is funny. Masum Reza📞 14:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sebari: See also en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#Possible block evasion by Calvinkulit.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure this is Calvinkulit, but we should have an eye on Special:Contributions/2406:3003:2004:6A0:0:0:0:0/64 nevertheless. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
[42] [43] [44], importing File:Related-article-list-tablet-13.png and File:Related-article-list-spec-14.png despite lacking a source. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked indef now after more inappropriate edits. No constructive edits, either a troll account or severely misguided, but just a drain on contributor resources. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Manakpreet Singh

Copyvio after block release. Please note too that File:Choudhary Charan Singh.jpg deleted at 02:42 has been recreated by Vrishchik (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) at 05:54. Same misuse of {{GODL-India}} and both blocked for the same reason. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Manakpreet Singh for a year (third block). Taivo (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

মোঃ আরিফুল ইসলাম সুজন বোঁথড়

OOS files despite warnings. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Phankhachaidang

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Blocked by Gbawden for a week. Every upload is either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Maaaa724

Reuploading deleted content without permission from author. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Ángel Olivares Aray

Everything is copyvio + recreates deleted content over and over. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Dileep.mann

OOS files despite warnings. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 24 hours. FitIndia Talk Mail 16:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Abhayjaxen73

OOS files despite warnings. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 3 days. FitIndia Talk Mail 05:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

พระรามเดินดง

Probably the same/similar uploads as แสงทองส่องหล้า. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked him/her indefinitely as sockpuppet. The upload will be deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

ศาสวัติ อรรควงษ์

OOS files despite warning. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I deleted his last remaining uploads as copyright violations and warned him. Now he is warned against out-of-scope files and against copyvios. If he continues, then he should be blocked. Taivo (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Abel Cofrades 2019

The user is removing problem tags from his own uploads. See edit summary for his intentions. Castillo blanco (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him for a month due to his intentions. Taivo (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Calvinkulit 3

For reference, after today's block of Calvinkulit, I decided to unblock him after a private e-mail conversation. I now believe that he is really here to help, but needs guidance. I left a few ground rules on his talk page. Please engage him in conversation if you find anything amiss and I believe in time he might become a valuable contributor. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

He's now adding files to overly broad categories like Category:China, Category:Germany and Category:Egypt. Or flags. Also GIF files when the file was already in Category:Animated GIF files. It's debatable how useful this is. I'll suggest to Calvin using the "unidentified" categories. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

HliaqxjyqWM

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

  1. Signs Feminist.
  2. Votes in COM:FPC with a brand new account and less than 50 edits.
  3. Misplaces their comments, ignoring the chronology (1, 2...) or participating after the voting period (3) -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Indef. --A.Savin 14:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Elsever Novruzov

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

Almost everything is copyvio or at least suspicious. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Samral

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

Too many copyvios, too many incoherent copyright claims, too many cameras. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week and some uploads deleted. I don't have the time to go through them all right now Gbawden (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Alternativetours

Advert only account, see file description. Blocked twice for uploading unfree files. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked indef. Promotional username and activities. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 14:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Blazedbabe18

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done 3 days. --Túrelio (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Dacosta 3

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done 2 weeks. --Túrelio (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion nominations issue - argument between users

I am posting here to attract admin attention to an argument on a deletion "discussion" (it can not be called that anymore I think). The deletion concerned is here and there are other deletions on the same subject. The 2001 IP messaged me and others on Wikipedia about this. None of the others have reacted in any way, and I don't intend to add to the issue by adding any vote let alone delete. But it's out of hand between the 2001 IP, Georgivac and Quakewoody and it needs admin intervention. For my own view I see no need to add to what I already said on Wikipedia about the subject, and I acknowledge that the rules are different here. It just needs to be sorted out and maybe a decision made either way on whether of not to delete the eight images nominated. Addicted4517 (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted now as derivative work. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Srittau: How can a cropped/blurred version of the photo be made without access to the photo? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I assume the original uploader still has access to it. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Srittau: Well nevermind, I found it. Btw, what was the OTRS permission that Sphilbrick added for? Also, please undelete/revision delete as I uploaded a blurred version. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

PaulPlummer1

PaulPlummer1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Uploading fake logos and using them across multiple language projects in what I can only assume to be cross-wiki vandalism. I had to revert about 20-30 pages across multiple projects for the Verizon logo. CodeLyoko (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Locked by a steward. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Same person

Uploading files that depict the same person. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked User:Bazookafan indefinitely and User:Lottleeuw for a month. FitIndia Talk Mail 17:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Bazookafan requested unblock claiming, that they are husband and wife or something like that. I granted unblock for both and warned them not to upload more copyvios. Taivo (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Allstuffs blogger

Must think we are stupid. They have had several images of these two people deleted as copyvio, then threatened with a block at en.wp if they don't stop using copyvio images. Now, as if by magic, a Flickr account appears with a picture of each of these people (well, supposedly of these people, and they may well be, but how would we know - with no provenance?), and the same software (PicsArt Photo Studio) and the same author id (298127727317101) in the exif on the flickr files and their other uploads here... Pull the other one - it has bells on... See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Allstuffs blogger, File:Worshipp Khanna.jpg, File:Kanika Mann as Guddan.jpg and compare the Flickr exif details with their other uploads here. -- Begoon 15:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done - blatant license laundering. Эlcobbola talk 16:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Begoon 16:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@Begoon: , @Elcobbola: This user seems to be back as Priancaa.pri and has used flicker again with these images File:Worshipp Khanna Profile.jpg and File:Kanika Mann in Golden Temple.jpg. FitIndia Talk Mail 12:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
...and didn't even bother to use a different Flickr account - same two subjects. Yes, obviously a sock. -- Begoon 12:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Confirmed. Unlike last time, they entered the Flickr information manually because I'd added the account to the exclusion list. Эlcobbola talk 15:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

User:王嘉爾口腔癌末期患者

See Old revision of Category:Sex and Revision #370068095. Maybe a troll ? -- Eatcha (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Warned for repeat-vandalism. --Túrelio (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. Now the account is globally locked. Taivo (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Rii'jeg'fkep'c

See User talk:Rii'jeg'fkep'c and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rii'jeg'fkep'c. Uploading too many out-of-scope files. Also copyvios. --予弦 09:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for 2 weeks. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

(redacted)

Impersonator of Donald Trung. Look at their user page. --VKras (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It's an old INeverCry attack account, I remember noticing it some time ago, but ignored it to deny them attention. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done, sorry for accidentally blocking you, VKras. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Srittau This is okay, accidents happen. --VKras (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW: I redacted a little more and pinged Stewards to suppress the account. Still can't understand why INC does what he does. ??? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
One of the reasons may be, that in America using Nazi attribution is not prohibited, alas. --A.Savin 21:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: Oh, I had just contacted the oversighters (I used w:Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, oversight is global anyway isn't it?) for both accounts. I removed the link from the title. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Stewards are global as well. Anyway, thanks for keeping an eye on the shop! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
No, on commons the oversighters are Odder, PierreSelim,Rama and Raymond.-- MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Ahmadkurdi44

Uploaded three more photos of phones that are claimed as own work after final warning, yet they are already posted elsewhere via Google search.--BevinKacon (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done nuked and blocked for a week. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Guantxi

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: was he uploading YouTube screenshots by any chance? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
No, photos taken from an external site which clearly were not freely licensed and did not look like screenshots.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Alright, username seemed similar to some I had seen before (also from eswiki), but probably unrelated then. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Nicewels. Taichi (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hoseinrahmanimaneshh

Already blocked, no useful edits. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked undefined now Ezarateesteban 17:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Aram2018beko

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked a week, all deleted Ezarateesteban 16:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

건축가 김경훈

Two accounts, same uploads. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Might be the same person

Uploading photos of Taeyeon without any valid source/permission. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 03:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
+1. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Sock

High chance of this being a sock of Carsson Tan. Same interest. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Villaganzerla90

Almost everything is copyvio, already blocked once. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Huy Nguyễn Thanh Gia

Continues copyvios after block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Sidrao21

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked - indef, prev. 1 month block. ~riley (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Nous même

Continues out of scope uploads. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Tafhim tahsin50

The user was blocked a week ago for uploading copyright violations and is now uploading copyrigh violations again. Castillo blanco (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Final warning given and uploads nuked. Next time he will be blocked Gbawden (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Actually done The last block was a final warning in itself; user has had ample warnings - not sure why we put off the inevitable on this one. Another copyvio today so blocked again. ~riley (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Comitefolmer

Continues copyvios after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Ángel Olivares Aray

Continues copyvios after release from block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Blazedbabe18

Continues copyvios after release from block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

YusbeAngel2000

Once Ángel Olivares Aray (talk · contribs) blocked YusbeAngel2000 (talk · contribs) uploads the same iumage. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked - indef for duck sock. If another pops up, please take this to CU. ~riley (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Mousebolivia

Almost everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks Gbawden (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

When is it appropriate to request an interaction ban...

I see no grounds for an interaction ban, there are some legitimate concerns about the images. The discussion about the VIRIN id is important to have, but in a more appropriate venue, like VP. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2019 (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.

World's Lamest Critic makes frivolous deletion nominations of images I upload, most recently Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress -b.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cutaway drawing of a Boeing YB-40.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Interior of a Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress - 130621-F-BT231-010.JPG . In this, and other frivolous nominations, World's Lamest Critic claims he or she is basing the nomination on the precautionary principle, but, it seems to me they are taking PCP to bizarre extremes.

Contributors are not supposed to import disputes from other WMF projects. Well, the two of us had a disagreement, on en.wiki, which they took to a nasty turn, started wikistalking me, and ended up earning themselves an indefinite block. Their unwelcome focus on my contributions here dates to when they were indefinitely blocked there.

So, interaction bans, is there a formal process? Presumably if an interaction ban is imposed on World's Lamest Critic, one would be imposed on me, as well. That is not a problem for me, as I am not wikistalking them.

Who would decide an interaction ban was in order? Geo Swan (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

As Geo Swan is well aware, my block on Wikipedia was for posting an editor's LinkedIn page during an investigation of their conflict of interest. It had nothing at all to do with Geo Swan. I do not have a dispute with Geo Swan, but he is a careless editor and has a history of making incorrect claims of public domain on his uploads. In this most recent case, he has uploaded three images for which we do not know dates or photographers. Although the source gives no date, he has stated that they are from 1943. And although we do not know the original source or photographer, he has claimed that they are the work of Air Force personnel. Geo Swan seems to believe that any image published on a military site is public domain, despite being shown that this is not the case. If he took more care with his uploads, I doubt I would have any interactions with him at all. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It does not appear that the VIRIN differentiates between uniformed service members, direct civilian hires, and civilian contractors. So it is not clear that we can rely on that solely to determine the copyright status. Having said that, someone who uses Facebook can probably just send Jim O'Connell a note and ask him directly. Looking through his photos, some of them, like clippings from the local newspaper, do appear to be pretty clear cut copyright violations. So anybody's guess how much of a handle this guy has on the status of the works he is archiving. (But I tend to fall on the conservative side of how we should treat potential government works with unknown authors. So take that for whatever it's worth I guess.) GMGtalk 15:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Clarification please, GreenMeansGo, are you suggesting that Jim O'Connell may have found some proprietary photos of the YB-40, and FORGED phony VIRIN ids for them? Why in the name of heck would anyone do that? If that is what you meant to suggest I suggest you are carrying PCP too far.
Clarification please. You wrote: "It does not appear that the VIRIN differentiates between uniformed service members, direct civilian hires, and civilian contractors." Well, the first sentence of Commons:VIRIN explicitly says...
Commons:VIRIN explicity says a VIRIN is (emphasis added)
"... a unique identifier assigned by the United States Department of Defense to OFFICIAL still photographs, motion picture footage, video recordings, and audio recordings made by USDOD personnel AS PART OF THEIR REGULAR DUTIES."
Did you mean to challenge the accuracy of Commons:VIRIN? The VIRIN code letter distinguishes which agency is responsible for the image. It seems to me that only those with the code letter "O", for other, should have their PD status questioned.
With regard to Jim O'Connell's facebook page. I hate facebook, so I have applied the apps that block my computers from going to facebook. Is this facebook page for his private, off-duty activities? If so, the presence of images with questionable copyright status should play no role in whether we trust what he puts on the .mil pages he is responsible for, when he is on duty.
I asked for advice on when and where it was appropriate to request an interaction ban. You didn't weigh in on that. Geo Swan (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, then the explanation here on Commons may need to be updated, or we may need to seek additional clarification on the application of VIRINs. The DoD website explaining the VIRIN pretty clearly seems to lump contractors in with everyone else when using the branch designations, and if we can't determine whether the author was a DoD contractor from the VIRIN alone, then that alone would not be sufficient to determine the copyright status of the work. I've seen plenty of DRs shrug that uncertainty off as "good enough", but if we're getting into the nitty gritty of it, we keep such files as "good enough" and not because we have unequivocally determined the status of the work.
This is as good a place as any to request an interaction ban I suppose, although those are rare on Commons. But the nominations themselves don't seem absurd on their face, and so I'm not sure they themselves are a very compelling argument for one. GMGtalk 18:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: What you are doing here is exactly the kind of thing that you do in deletion debates and the main reason why our interactions are not better. You seem unwilling to accept new information or admit that you may be wrong about anything. A VIRIN identifier is for classification and tracking of assets. It is not a license and should not be interpreted as a license. That much should be clear even from reading COM:VIRIN where it shows that code "O" (for "other") in field 2 indicates an author not in the listed military branches. In the cases at hand, the date field in the VIRIN number indicates they were created in 2013. Not 1943, as you have claimed. File:Interior of a Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress - 130621-F-BT231-010.JPG appears to be a scan from a book. It seems reasonable that if an Air Force employee scans an image out of a book, they will assign a VIRIN number to that scan with the date that it was scanned, for the purposes of identification and tracking. That does not magically make it public domain. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Geo Swan, World's Lamest Critic, AN/U is not the place to have a deletion discussion. Why don't you both wait see what other informed Commoners say at the DRs rather than fighting between yourselves. As far as I can see, WLC has created exactly three DRs. Creating three DRs does not get anyone banned on Commons, never mind an interaction ban. However bringing a dispute over from Wikipedia to AN/U could get either of you blocked if you don't quit fighting now. A DR is just a request for review, and it is clear both of you differ in your opinion and cannot be persuaded. If the rationale is faulty then an admin will point this out when closing it. If the rationale has merit, then either more information is required or an admin will delete it. There would only really be a problem if WLC persisted is raising DRs with the same faulty logic after this had already been settled. -- Colin (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Colin, I have started deletion discussions for maybe a dozen military images uploaded by Geo Swan. I haven't kept track of them, but Geo Swan probably has. Take a look at a recent one, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heroic Coast Guard sailor John F. McCormick.png. As in this case, Geo Swan makes assertions that are not found in the image or the source. As in this case, there is insufficient information to confirm that the image was in the public domain. The problem here is not any "faulty logic" on my part, but a refusal by Geo Swan to learn form past mistakes. It is very likely that I will continue to start deletion discussions for his uploads, if he continues to upload images with dubious or unclear license information. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I included you in the "could get blocked" because you were persisting the personal fight over copyright claims at AN/U which isn't appropriate for this venue. However, the bulk of my concern wrt getting themselves blocked was Geo Swan who has from the beginning turned a dispute over copyright/sufficient-information into personal attacks and dragging up Wikipedia concerns. To answer the original question: "When is it appropriate to request an interaction ban?" -- on Commons virtually never. Interaction bans are nearly always proposed by one party in order to censor a critic, whether that be FPC reviews or Deletion reviews or admin behaviour. Or they are proposed by admins who simply want a current problem to go away quickly without doing any difficult work like resolving a dispute so both parties are happy.
While I understand that patterns of poor information in files uploaded here may also correspond with one user's uploads, we need to be careful when doing a user-focused review of images that it does not seem that you are simply picking on someone you don't get on with. It would be useful to know what proportion of DRs of GeoSwan's images are actually deleted. You can find DRs you raised in your contribs by setting Commons as the namespace and tick the "page creations" box. Please remember that while currently it may seem that educating GeoSwan or deleting historical photos that lack information is The Most Important Thing Ever, it really isn't your responsibility. As volunteers in a community, you can choose to take your attention elsewhere and leave it for others to worry about. -- Colin (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2019 (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.

Posh James Peechatt

Out of scope stuff, spam, no useful edit. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Bautyar

Similar user name, escape block of abuse of multiple accounts by Bauty Aguirre (Foto de Cris Morena por Bauty Aguirre, fondo por DyosEL). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Disculpa, pero yo no estoy escapando de ningún bloqueo. Me cree esta cuenta porque tengo problemas para iniciar sesión con la otra, a esta cuenta la voy a usar temporalmente hasta que pueda iniciar sesión en mi otra cuenta. Además, mi bloqueo en mi otra cuenta Bauty Aguirre ya ha expirado. Con respecto a las otras imágenes voy a eliminarlas si hay problemas con ellas. Pido disculpas si cometí errores.

Bautyar (talk), 16 October 2019

Hola la cuenta Bauty Aguirre esta bloqueada globalmente, por lo tanto está evade dicho bloqueo Ezarateesteban 00:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

MedinaSergioWiki

Flickrwashing. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done User given final warning, uploads deleted and flickr account added to bad authors Gbawden (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Images are deleted so quick that they cannot be picked up for use in projects

Hoi, I have found that pictures are targeted for deletion and speedily deleted at a pace where it is not possible for people to include them in other projects. To make this less problematic. Pictures particularly of people that do have a "depicts" statement or are included in a category should not be automatically deleted. The notion that a bot owner is not responsible for his work is in my opinion also problematic. It follows that an image first has to be deleted and that is horrid. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@GerardM: If someone uploads a copyrighted image to Commons it will be deleted, whether or not it is added to an article. In short, you shouldn't be uploading here if its not your own work or there is no free license for it Gbawden (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
For example, File:Photo Mukesh.jpg while it may be in scope for use on Wikidata, this is likely a copyvio. Being the only upload of this user makes it highly likely that it is. Gbawden (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
We ask scientists to upload their pictures to Commons and this is how you treat them? GerardM (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I hope you ask scientists to upload only pictures that are freely licensed. Otherwise, please stop to ask them. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) @GerardM: Whoever does the asking must also inform them about copyright issues and licensing. When the deletion rationale is however not a copyright issue or other pressing concerns (attack files, pedo stuff, DMCA takedowns etc) but rather a matter of scope, I agree that filing a deletion request immediately after upload is deterimental for the project and needlessly stressing for the uploading party and potential reusers. Granted that a deletion request discussion should be open for one week at least, but there’s several Commons admins infamous for their hurry in closing DRs and even for speedily deleting files for scope reasons — which is all sorts of wrong. I tend to give a pass to recently uploaded files when it comes to scope and avoid filing a DR for anything newer than several months. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
It is asked on Twitter by among others the "Women in Red" team. I collaborate with organisation that already writes to OTRS. The bottom line is that we want Commons to work for us and not against us. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
If copyrighted images are added to Wikimedia Commons, they will be deleted as such without regard to who uploaded them or whether they are in-scope. If people are being encouraged to upload files, it must be emphasized to them that those files require an acceptable license and cannot be copyrighted. Vermont (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
That is an assumption and wrong. So try again. 90.145.52.2 09:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Yep, that's the way to talk to volunteers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't work for you, since you don't pay me. As a volunteer for Commons, my goals will be somewhat different from yours, and snapping at us doesn't help, nor does not listening to our concerns. Portraits are hard, because people don't worry about copyright on photos of them, and Commons does care about that. The only image mentioned here is File:Photo Mukesh.jpg, which does have copyright problems, and while I'm not rushing to delete it for being out of scope, Wikidata certainly makes me wonder about this photo's value to Wikimedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@GerardM: Why are you asking these scientists to contribute their images? And why are they being used on Wikidata if there are no Wikipedia articles for those scientists? What is the idea behind this? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_80&oldid=403591623"