Black Headed Grosbeak

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

1989, please do not revert people several times.

Natuur12, I also think that link is inappropriate - not because it's copyrighted, but because it's a copyright violation. Funny though. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I reverted them one time. 1989 (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The video is "Suggested by" the network, implying consent. The clip is fair use anyways imo. One of the purposes of such short clips is commenting and criticizing the work. Besides, we don't know about any agreements between the uploader and the network. Natuur12 (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no commenting or criticism there, and it's certainly not transformative. No way does that count as fair use. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I was about to make a thread a the COM:VP about this, but whatever, discussing here works too, fellow colleague. In situations like this, It'd be great if polices like en:WP:COPYVIOEL would apply to Commons as well. I see nothing of importance linking to a copyrighted video of vulgar media. It's not helpful nor was it represent what the project stands for, which is free media. Honestly, I expected better from an administrator. 1989 (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That policy wouldn't be applicable because it applies to the external link section in Wikipedia articles. Taking the moral high ground doesn't suit you a bit. Natuur12 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Here's one that applies everywhere: en:WP:LINKVIO. In fact, it was mentioned as "See also" on the first link. Guess you didn't acknowledge that. 1989 (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that section is also about Wikipedia articles. But I think that we both have better things to do than participating in this discussion. I know I do, and I do hope the same applies to you. Natuur12 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Why wouldn't it be? If I have to vote for parlement, I'm allowed to do the exact same (though I would have to write the link using a red pencil) without invalidating my vote. In the US people vote for Big Bird as the next president. Is it appropriate to do so? Why not. People are just using their freedom without limiting the freedom of others and that's perfectly acceptable. Natuur12 (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Political vote spoiling is a private, anonymous act, RFA is neither of those, so this is a poor argument.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That hardly relates with the main point of my argument. Natuur12 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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

1989 you revert Natuur12 twice. Not one time. That is wrong behavior for admin. No matter if the linked content was legitimately there or not. You cannot enforce policy that you intend to suggest to COM:VP. When user criticise your actions, you should be more careful from doing so. So what, now as I criticise you, I should expect actions against me? -- Geagea (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Nah, I believe it was once, while my edit was undone twice. I performed my edit twice, but as far as undoing, it was once. As for your question, I've never took action against anyone who have an issue with my contribution. Unless they were very uncivil about it, of course. 1989 (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• The edit summary by 1989 here is ridiculous. A lot of files here on Wikimedia Commons is copyrighted. pandakekok9 04:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  So because copyvios are missed and hosted here for years, that gives them a right to link to copyrighted videos, or actually upload the clip on Commons? That makes zero sense, but go off I guess. 1989 (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  By the way, if this is how you're going to act, I highly recommend changing cancelling your plans of becoming an administrator here anytime soon. 1989 (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You missed pandakekok9's comment about copyright, as example all my own works here are copyrighted, my last own work is still copyrighted. So yes, "don't link to copyrighted videos" is maybe not "a bit ridiculous" but doesn't make much sense in itself, as even the free licensed videos on Youtube are still copyrighted. A free license is in no way a surrender of copyright, excepted the licenses that are explicitly a surrender of copyright, and the CC licenses in Youtube are not. I'm neutral on the rest of the discussion. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

^What Christian said. If we don't allow users to link to copyrighted videos, COM:FV wouldn't exist in the first place. It's important to distinguish "copyrighted" from "non-free". As an admin and a "native" speaker of English, I'd expect you to know that. It would have been better if you said "non-free" instead of "copyrighted" in your summary (though I still disagree that linking to non-free videos in itself is not allowed, as there's no policy backing it). pandakekok9 06:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I did. 1989 (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. But you didn't in your revert. Regardless, there's no policy saying that linking to non-free videos in itself is not allowed. And definitely not linking to copyrighted videos either. pandakekok9 06:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Hi Josve,

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

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

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

• Alybaig004 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Alybaig16 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

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

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

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

1. English: I am not this user. I can also prove that. I also find that pretty discriminatory. He doesn't justify that either. I also made no elections or manipulations here by being multiple users at the same time. I don't think it's constructive either. Others also deal with similar topics because they are interested in them. I am not uploading data that already exists. I have the wrong topic here for a lobby. One can assume that. Many volunteers on Commons are missing for the topic of Pirna and Dresden. The reason is that I upload more than usual because there are no people uploading anything. I also upload stuff that will otherwise be forgotten. He gives no reason. Many use Wikimedia. He wants it the way he thinks and doesn't argue. So you can't just get involved with such users. He doesn't give the real reasons or would give false ones. Discriminating people according to a similar way of thinking or acting according to origin is against fundamental rights / human rights. He sees that I am one of the few people or the last person to upload certain great pictures that represent a state that no longer exists. It is important that you have access to pictures where you can see the former buildings that once existed. They are also very beautiful and unique in the world, in the sense of urban planning. I can prove that I am not this person or user. I'm not interested in that either.

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

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

User:MaxxL you need to provide evidence of such accusations, or offer to email evidence to admins.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

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

•  Blocked for 1 month. - FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 20:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

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

• File:Julia Gillard 2013.jpg
• File:TheReportOfTheWeek 2017.jpg
• File:John Newman MP.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your work, Taivo and Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• User:Themightyquill to E4024: "While your CFD nominations can be quite helpful, if you continue to use it as a forum to complain about users, you'll receive a temporary ban. " (23 April 2019 )
• User:Themightyquill to E4024: "Why can't you stop using CfDs as a forum to air your general grievances? I asked you to stop proposing bans of IPs in CfDs, and you completely ignore me. It's disruptive and you've been asked repeatedly and warned. Is there any reason I shouldn't impose the temporary block I promised" (20 May 2019)
• Block. "Disruptive use of CfDs to complain about users after repeated warnings, starting CfDs without taking the time to explain the CfD" (20 May 2019)

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

• "Nobody there? After more than a year? I found for you a reading piece. Any action or reaction from Hispanic people? There is a poor Chilean gentleman -now- in the cat. I hope he will not feel embarrassed in his grave to be put in the same basket with Moslems and Hindus, the only people who kill women..." (13 May 2020) (see previous comments)
• E4024 to Infrogmation of New Orleans "Correct this attitude, among all, we are in XXIst Century. Turks will not come to conquer your countries again. Ciao. " (26 May 2020)
• E4024 to Strakhov: this rant (30 May 2020)
• E4024 to ? "People should refrain using Commons for their sexual fantasies. This is an educational project. " (30 May 2020)

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

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

• I'm not well versed on what type of administrative remedy is appropriate in a case like this, but this user is making odd CfD arguments that have nothing to do with policy at Commons:Deletion requests/File:01 Leiomy Mizrahi by Ebru Yildiz.jpg as well. Armadillopteryx (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

--Fæ (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: I didn't see a statement of an "enemies list" but instead "list of people to avoid interacting with". To me those are different - an enemies list is of people you want to confront, the other is a list of people you don't want to have to talk to at all. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair point, thanks for the correction.

To make the relatively low proportion of perceived problematic CfD contributions clearer, the original unfiltered report of all CfD edits in 2020 for E4024 is at User:Faebot/SandboxE. --Fæ (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• I normally try to keep away from discussions about myself because I do not find it politically correct, but this time I will make an exception. The reason is I recently came back from "self-imposed exile" and I believe I do have a lot of positive contributions to Commons and it would be a loss for the platform (although a drop in the ocean).

• 1. To Jonatan Svensson Glad: Re-reading the CfD you refer to, I see the below words of mine:

     "I have my doubts in keeping this cat just as it is. If it were me, I would have proposed the deletion of my own images (even if I were 20) and as I'm a bit older, with all due respect to our colleague I would like to tell him that when he is my age and he remembers he had so many personal pictures in Commons at some point of time, he will smile and say "E4024 was right". This I say with some life experience. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance and in public. Sorry Jonatan. A cordial hug."

     "If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance and in public. Sorry Jonatan. A cordial hug." Is this not enough? Then block me if it will make you feel better. I can only repeat the above words, nothing else comes to my mind.

  2. To the latest user who contributed above: I did not make any odd (or not) CfD arguments at the said DR. The file will only be deleted if the closing admin deems that is the correct decision. Do not feel bad about me because I opened a DR. I wish you best.
  3. To the admin who opened this thread: Firstly, I made a call to you on your adminship not because of two wrong reverts because I have other observations in time that I will keep to myself. If I thought your adminship were harmful to the project I would try to do something about it. I do not think so. BTW as you like researches you may find out that neither here nor at any other place I opened a complaint about any user. (And normally I do not participate in discussions about me as I already said above.) Frankly I find it unlucky that this comes shortly after I told you to resign. Whatever. Ah, during my presence here I may probably have opened also useful CfDs. You could make a list of them also and so we can see the picture better. Regrettably most cats about which I opened discussions were deleted or merged somewhere, but still there must be a number of "good" CfDs I opened. Never mind. If I see there are many people like you who do not want me here I will go. Take care.

  (Sorry Fae, I had already written my text. I will read you after sending this.)

  --E4024 (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• User: 77.252.60.86 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Rasism bahavior and proviting racist propaganda on wiki comons.

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

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

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

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

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

• EvilEmperor22 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user continues to upload unfree content after final warning.--BevinKacon (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

   Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Seven days ago A1Cafel's reply to concerns was to agree to stop using F10 'for a while'.

Unless there is evidence they have failed to do that, I do not understand why a good faith agreement would be inadequate or why a sysop request is necessary compared to discussing with A1Cafel.

There is no need to escalate if local discussion is having a positive effect. --Fæ (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That agreement covers F10, while this discussion if about all deletion nominations. --Jarekt (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Support I run into this user when they began deleting copyright tags from the files without any explanation, as can be seen here. That action seemed particularly malicious, as it will likely cause the file to show up in the database queries aimed at detecting files with no license tags. A likely scenario is that someone-else will slap it with "no license" tag causing speedy deletion. What was especially strange was that this file already had Deletion Request page, so the deletion of the license seemed to be attempt to short circuit the ongoing discussion. My comments on the user page, and many other similar comments, were never answered. I have no confidence that this user knows what they are doing, as far as deletions and policies go. --Jarekt (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 Comment The reason has been explained on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Katherine young 5182935.jpg, so I don't think it is necessary to repeat once more. This is about the Flickr PDM 1.0 licensing problem per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Me and Mdaniels5757 are working on this. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment If there's proof that A1Cafel is making wrong deletion nominations again after he was warned about CSD F10, then I would support the ban. Otherwise I don't think a ban on making deletion nominations is necessary and helpful right now. pandakekok9 08:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment I noticed a discussion on User_talk:A1Cafel#Missing_authors_and_sources about the source of 8 files. The files was tagged with NSD a few hours ago. It is a crop of intro text of old German tv-series. Later it changed to a discussion about permission.

Personally I would not tag the files with a NSD or a NPD as the logos are text and you could argue that the image in the background is de minimis. Both NSD and NPD is in my opinion also a deletion tag.

Perhaps instead of a ban A1Cafel could get a mentor to discuss DR's etc with? --MGA73 (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Mdaniels5757 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

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

 Not done. Mdaniels removes incorrect licenses from files, which are licensed in Flickr as public domain mark. COM:L says for allowed licenses in Commons: "The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable". Public domain mark is not allowed in Commons, because it is revocable, please see Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images for the discussion. Taivo (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• I am of the opinion it would have been more appropriate to slap a {{No permission since}} on this particular photo rather than removing the licence tag and then slapping a {{No license since}}. The username of the uploader and the name of the account on Flickr are similar enough that there is enough of a possibility that the uploader and the Flickr account holder are one and the same. As such, if the the Flickr account holder and the uploader on Commons are the same person, they would have the right to relicense the photo, therefore, upload the photo under a different licence than the PDM tag they had on Flickr. Evidently, as it was uploaded previously elsewhere, this may need to confirmed using OTRS or the Flickr account holder will need to relicense on Flickr. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 19:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it would be more helpful. Perhaps also a small notice explaining why we do not accept the "license" on Flickr. But I also agree that there is no need to take actions against Mdaniels. --MGA73 (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, you should create formal request for checkuser. I warned Bruno Bertoldo Jackson and will delete his last remaining uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I opened a case.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 07:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sounds like User:GeXeS is reading much more into my simple edit than is reasonable – and advancing a conspiracy theory about motivation where none is needed. They are also alluding for "waiting for an agreement" whereas the template's simple change hasn't even been contested once.

The question actually is purely technical: once the main translated page or template has been changed (which, by the way, hasn't been contested via any normal means so far: e.g. via the Talk pages), is it reasonable to manually synchronize translations (i.e. ".../i18n/lang" subpages) while the main changes are waiting in queue for a translation admin's approval (which is a purely technical step as I understood from reading the manual)? Or will this mess something up in the translation interface later and such manual editing of the ".../i18n/lang" subpages is discouraged?

So perhaps this discussion should have been started by User:GeXeS in a technical forum, as its main point is syncing/unsyncing translations. If, on the contrary, the main objection is to the main language's (English) changes to the template, this should have been raised first on the main template's Talk page (".../i18n" or just "...") before being brought up here. Cherkash (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And another sock in the form of the IP 99.203.128.232, blocked for 3 days, but with the same pattern of edits. Tm (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Comment User:Jdx has blocked this user for cross-wiki vandalism. Thank you for the quick response. Tm (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

To be precise, I have blocked them just for vandalismm, not cross-wiki vandalism. And yesterday I softblocked the whole 99.203.0.0/16 range. Earlier 2605:A000:F68D:8600::/64, 76.189.163.233 and Pcgmsrich. --jdx ^Re: 17:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done --jdx ^Re: 17:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

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

 Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• M.faroy (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

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

•  Support Useless edits. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
•  Blocked for 1 month and deleted most of the uploads. - FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 07:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Alybaig004 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

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

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

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

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

•  Half done User has been warned. However, as the image, while similar to the deleted, are not the same. As such, I have nominated them for deletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Zamstag2020 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

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

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

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

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

They're very likely referring to your threats to being blocked. You weren't planning to perform the blocking yourself, right? From what I've seen, it's nothing more than a dispute. In situations like this, it'd be great if you assumed good faith and properly communicate with the user instead of thinking they're malicious while leaving template messages stating they would be blocked. 1989 (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again: they accused me of threating of violence, which is slanderous. Block = violence? Wow, just wow. --A.Savin 17:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What you described does not warrant an immediate block and I already told you why. 1989 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a mistranslation to me, I don't think it was meant as physical violence. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

What is exactly, in your opinion, a mistranslation here? Is it that I threatened violence but actually didn't mean that as violence, or that Kalbbes accused me of threatening violence while they meant something different? --A.Savin 20:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think they intended to accuse you of threatening physical violence. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mattbuck: I don't think it's a mistranslation. Kalbbes claims they have a professional level of reading and speaking English on their userpage. pandakekok9 08:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Clearly Kalbbes did not mean physical violence. He meant doing him harm of another sort.

You (A.Savin) accused him of vandalism, which is at least as much of a stretch as his accusation of violence. Vandalism is doing willful damage. Clearly he is editing with positive intentions, even if perhaps not always competently and possibly even at times against consensus (although in a dispute between two people with no third party involved, there is no clear consensus).

I'm not saying Kalbbes did nothing wrong. I am saying that there is mainly a content dispute between two editors here, and it is not a situation for one of those editors to put on his admin hat and threaten blocks.

Yes, at some point, if it is clear that he is editing against consensus, he could be blocked for that, but I'd expect it to be handled exactly the same way as if the person he is in conflict with were not an admin. - Jmabel ! talk 02:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I actually thought, relevant (for community health) is what you write/say and not what you think for yourself? Do you find it okay that my name is, thanks to Kalbbes, now connected with a violence accusation? At least an administrative removal of this unjust accusation were actually to expect?

By the way, I don't remember to ever have called their edits vandalism, but that's right, I actually used this semi-automated warning message. --A.Savin 03:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Remember now? 1989 (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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

I thank you A.Savin to have given up wasting time to the community, you opinion of yourself talk by itself and is impressive. Do you suggest that if one think you are not worthy to be administrator because of your warlike behavior this is harassement? lol. Every month or every two months or three months you are involved in disputes where you threaten people to be blocked, and at each time for nothing worth of a block. I repeat the question: when the community will decide to desysop A.Savin? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Info note that I am not responsible for the creation of this subsection. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Fæ per previous significant input regarding this administrator for comment. Do you think one should be started? 1989 (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

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

You gave false warnings about vandalism to someone who didn't commit vandalism. If you don't see nothing wrong with that, that's a serious concern. 1989 (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The warnings may have been "too semi-automated", but they were not false: If a user removes a perfectly justified category from a file, you revert it, and they repeat the removal again, without seeking discussion, without any explanation, how would you react otherwise? Do nothing? Block immediately? If warnings are not welcome, why then do we have this gadget amongst user preferences? --A.Savin 19:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

If it were me, I would of told them what they did wrong and ask to discuss if they disagreed in the edit summary. If done a second time, I would of asked them to stop before I reported them. There are times when you cannot act as a sysop, especially in a dispute. 1989 (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The essence is the same --- I discussed with them numerous times on their talkpage, my talkpage, Help Desk. I explained what exactly was wrong. In what percentage of situations am I actually acting appropriately as sysop and in what not? I doubt that in situations where I act appropriately I would ever get a positive feedback from you. --A.Savin 19:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not fully aware of your history, so I can't answer that. As for the last sentence, that's nonsense. If I feel the need to defend you, I will. 1989 (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually this is exactly what I have to assume. In normal situations (i.e. when I do my job appropriately; which applies in far more than 90% of the cases) you don't feel the need to spend positive feedback, but in situations where others accuse me of doing my job inappropriately, you immediately join them in attacking my contributions. --A.Savin 20:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

If you couldn't do the same for me, then how do you expect me to do so in return? Despite your opinions of me, I've never let it blind my judgement. I've been completely neutral with you, like I do with everyone else. Once again, If I feel the need to defend you, I will. Please, let's not make this personal. 1989 (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

What could illustrate the fact, that your comments here are personally motivated, better than "If you couldn't do the same for me, then how do you expect me to do so in return"? And yeah, there were some problems, but note for example that I a) did not fall as deep to comment something like "Love you too 1889" (yes, it's not a typo, because in this comment my name was written wrong too and this also hardly was a typo), and --- surprise! --- supported a desysop of MtO, because I find both their block of you and the lack of discussion problematic. So who is actually getting personal here? --A.Savin 20:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Everyone can clearly see I was responding your personal comments, so your first sentence is utter nonsense. If you saw nothing wrong with how you voted to make me react that way, then something is seriously wrong. You, the one and only, is making this personal. 1989 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

We all learn something new and from past mistakes over time, some of my old comments meanwhile I find even embarassing and would not repeat it this way anymore. It's worrisome, especially for a sysop colleague, that you don't even distance yourself from this comment, and moreover, tend to diminish my comments here as "(utter) nonsense". Maybe en:WP:CIVIL is what you urgently should gain knowledge of. --A.Savin 21:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Uh-huh. 1989 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but at this point I have zero trust in this community. I am very critical of WMF, but I am afraid the best that could happen is WMF taking the project directly over.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: If that's the case, why are you still an administrator? 1989 (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Calling overcategorization "vandalism" is not appropriate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

KoH, note that there is a small tiny bit difference between "overcat" and "the same overcat again and again despite requests not to do this"... --A.Savin 19:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. If it were really vandalism, it wouldn't be possible to hold a 10+ message long back-and-forth conversation on his talk page about it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Do I understand then correctly, that any revert on a self-taken picture is for the author a content dispute? Or otherwise: what would you suggest, if someone comes with Cat-a-lot or VFC and removes all pictures from, just as example, Category:2 cats, without adding or suggesting something instead (e.g. a more specified same-tree category)? It's nothing different here, only with an other category and much less pictures (so far). --A.Savin 22:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Repeatedly refusing to follow categorization policy is of course a blockable offense (though I don't think Kalbbes is anywhere close to deserving a block). However, you should not block or threaten to block users you are involved in a dispute with, especially when it concerns your own files; it is best to report the behavior on a noticeboard like this, and have a neutral admin look at the situation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I've reported. This resulted in the above "discussion", where my favourite comments by fellow sysops are "Question: When the community will decide to desysop A.Savin?" and "Uh-huh". --A.Savin 00:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, and I'm the one that should read en:WP:CIVIL... 1989 (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm just citing. --A.Savin 01:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

What I'm saying is you should have filed a report instead of, not in addition to, blocking or threatening to block. Just to be clear, I don't agree with a desysop, but at the same time I think you could have handled the situation better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Savin: as 1989 wrote already, in such situations (not applicable for copyvio-uploads) we should at 1st instance notify the user about the problem and eventually explain or offer to discuss, at 2nd instance again notify and warn not to do/repeat the infringing action and at 3rd instance report (eventually propose a block) in order to allow other colleagues to voice their opinion. If it doesn't proceed as we think it should be, sometimes it's better to let go. Finally, none of us is responsible that everything is correct on Commons, even if we try our utmost..

@all: nevertheless, even if our colleague's behaviour might have been sub-optimal, I see no justification for a de-sysop. --Túrelio (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at this, and the user talk page linked, I see both editors used language that was inappropriate ("vandalism", "violence"), which upset the other and made further communication to resolve things harder. A.Savin, when you exaggerate, you increase the feeling in the other that they are being unjustly criticized. It would be useful for you to acknowledge that using that word was a mistake, we all make mistakes, and appreciate it made the situation worse. I also agree with others, that when one finds oneself in a "two people arguing with each other and getting nowhere" situation, it would be useful to (a) get input from others and (b) to take a break if wound up about it: there is no rush.

I don't think admins with long-running dislike of each other, should do a drive-by "Why is this guy still an admin" comments, or escalate things further. While is it possible to read "such threats of violence towards me" as purely figurative language, and I think it likely to be meant that way, it still isn't acceptable on Commons and all editors should be allowed to complain about.

User:Kalbbes, describing an administrative action as "violence" is never acceptable. Using language like that, which has legal and criminal meaning, against editors is not permitted. Many editors use their real names but even otherwise, such language on the internet can have real-world consequences. Do not do that again: I would support a block if repeated. I ask Kalbbes to strike that accusation and think other admins should join with me in insisting upon that an appropriate response. -- Colin (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Colin here. Templating experienced users with vandalism-notices for categorizations which were apparently done in good faith is not helpful. It would be preferable to refer to the edit in question and to tell what is wrong with it. Even if this happens again, it is better to have some patience and try to resolve this than to issue “last warnings”. If there remains a serious disregard for COM:OVERCAT or in case of edit-warring it is best to escalate this to COM:AN/U. Next, Kalbbes shouldn't have used the term violence. This is not acceptable, it would be best to strike this comment. And finally, we do not need another desysop discussion. Instead, we should attempt to improve our communication and to turn Commons into a more friendly space. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  @AFBorchert: How is falsely accusing someone of vandalism done in good faith? 1989 (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  @1989: I never claimed this. Please read: “categorizations which were apparently done in good faith”. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  I see. My apologies. 1989 (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Colin and AFBorchert and many thanks to both of you for taking time, and wise analysis. (Still a pity that it comes only now, though.) --A.Savin 13:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Well, maybe this should be closed now. And after a dispute with user:Charlesjsharp, if I remember well, a few months ago, and now this one, and all the (numerous) disputes that preceded these, maybe can we hope one entire year without a dispute that include a threat of block, and why not, let's be crazy, an entire year without conflict that include Alexander at all. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Christian Ferrer, your airing old grievances is a personal attack. There is a difference between presenting actionable evidence, with diffs, finding community agreement that there is an urgent problem in need of admin action, and just regularly moaning about someone in a general way whenever their name appears on this page. Kalbbes has not struck their remark and I see they are editing this evening. -- Colin (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

You don't help A.Savin let him trust that it is illegitimate to think that his behavior is not worth of the administrator status. The exact same kind of conflict+threat against another experimented editor was 6 months ago, [8]. And yes, yes I think we can ask "will he spare us that for at least a year?", and yes his beahavior is not worth of the administrator status. And yes it is my duty of administrator to say that to him for one reason, I consider as my duty of administrator to try to provide a safe environement to the "simple users" and to defend them against other unfair administrators if necessary. There is no old grievances, there is only A.Savin who wrongly (again) threaten to block another user with whom he has a strong discussion. If he do it again, then I will be here again to say it again, it is up to him to avoid that. That's not very complicated, however it seems that yes this is complicated for him, thus yes again (and again) that behavior is not worth of the administrator status, specially for an experienced one. Instead of following A.Savin with his stories of " harassement" (luckily I 'm administrator otherwise he would have likely blocked me since a long time... that's sure at 100%), or with his stories of "old grievances", you should convince him to do not put himself alone in similar situations (conflicts) in which he puts himself very (too) easily. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

If you have some evidence of a long-term problem then open a case, provide a long sequence of diffs, explain why this is unacceptable, what should be done, etc, etc. Then others can specifically look at that issue, balance it against the weight of non-problematic activity, and deal with that issue. What you are doing here is piling on top of a specific issue involving another user, with your vague moans about an admin you don't like. The specific issue, use of language that is not acceptable, is being dealt with and you are not helping. Consider if it was you who came here because someone had accused you of violence? Would you want editors and admins to examine that neutrally, or would you like for all the people who don't like you very much to come out and pick faults in what you said and how you said it, and for them to go on and on about it after others have told them to stop. Stop. -- Colin (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not me who will do something here, and not me who will make an honorable almond here, nice attempt to turn things around. If he do it again, I will say again, "that behavior is not worth of the administrator status". That's all. That's what I think and nothing will prevent me to say it. You can write ten messages of that kind, I will answer the same thing ten times... that's up to him not to be in this kind of situation, and that is the role of the administrators to "at least" try not to fall in this kind of complex situation. If it was me... no it is not me, but if it was me, I will make honorable almond (another condition necessary to the role of administrator, and another fully flouted, as we each time we need a long and long discussion to have A.Savin making a few step backs). Furthermore in the extend that this discussion have really started when I intervened, the facst don't make me think I'm wrong, thus I'm fully in my role here and should be thanked. If he wrongly and unfairly threat again other users for blocks, as he did several times (no need to search in the archives, this case and Charles' case talks by themselves), then I will say again "at when a desysop?" And you, will you make repeat this answer several times? Stop yourself. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

"and nothing will prevent me to say it?" Really? Christian, your constant moaning is just adding evidence for earning yourself a one-way interaction ban. Do you know the phrase "put up or shut up"? It really isn't about you thinking you are right and therefore justified to act like you do: lots of people think they are right and edit war or wheel war or whatever. How would you like it if every time you were on this forum, someone popped up to say "Why the heck is this ----er still an admin?", and when challenged to stop doing that replied "But he is a ----er!" If you aren't going to do something about it, it just just personal attacks. We get that you don't think A.Savin should be an admin. We get that you want to say this again and again. No need to say more. -- Colin (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This is the second time in less than 6 month that he do the same thing (that was the two first times? really??), without any true attempt of acknowledgement. Question: when the community will decide to desysop A.Savin? I'm alone to think that, fine, I can leave with that. But at least maybe can we hope one entire year without a dispute that include a threat of block from A.Savin within a conflict in which he is widely involved...

Should I repeat again? do you think having a chat with me mitigates A.Savin behavior?

Ok, if apparently it's necessary to repeat again: "can we hope one entire year without a dispute that include a threat of block from A.Savin within a conflict in which he is widely involved"?

Is that an extraordinary and exaggerated question? no, I think it is not, this is a legitimate and relevant question. Me I don't trust him, and I think he will do that again, thus my first comment "when the community will decide to desysop A.Savin?". I repeat again? or that's enough? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

They decide to do it, when they come to conclusion that my contribution is a net-damage for the poject. --A.Savin 17:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm fine with that. All what I said is my point of view, it's my full right to say it. Complain about a said "persucution", and/or call colleagues of you to do so, will not bring anything good for you, and is not even a beginning of difficulty for me, that is just a bit of time lost for several of us. When I say (with my words) "this specific fact is not up to the status of administrator", being on the defensive just shows your inability to remain in control of yourself as soon as there is a conflict, which leads you irremediably to a potential accentuation of the conflict, and a loss of control. What do you think I prefer: you being desysoped? or you not doing such things (unnecessary threat of blocking)? please AGF and consider a possibility that I am sincere when I stand up for a user who I think is being unfairly warned. Why don't you make me lie making sure you don't find yourself in this kind of situation anymore? You can not do it, is it too complicated? in that case, I'm right. You can do it, perfect, so do it, that would be very fine. Good luck, sincerely. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

from Kabbles

• @Colin: I didn't realize I was allowed to post here until I looked back as the last interactions A.Savin has with their last victim who defended themselves here. I have never received any kind of warning before after 400,000 edits. I've only experiences pleasant interactions, even when I've made a mistake. Messages from A.Savin to me within a few day's time: 10 Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikimedia Commons. 12 Warning for repeated vandalism (If you continue to vandalize you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia Commons); 13 This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Commons. The first threat was for adding a district name. The second for adding Arabian Sea Coast to a beach of Pakistan. They threatened to block me over the categorizing of one image that identifies on the internet as being in Clifton, Karachi; but A.Savin disagrees so that one disagreement is a reason to threaten a block in their eyes. I tried communication with them but they told me not to. Then they went after several of my edits at the time e.g. I suddenly find they are in the process of deleting a new cat I made that day, combining it with another even though the images are obviously different buildings with different cultural heritage numbers.

Category:Katchi Memon Masjid, Karachi with

This is a photo of a monument in Pakistan identified as the SD-P-136

Category:Memon Masjid, Karachi with

English: Memon Masjid

This is a photo of a monument in Pakistan identified as the SD-U-21

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

Because I don't have (of course) to expect a fair assessment of the situation from you Kalbbes, I have to specify it myself. At the timepoint I deleted the "Memon Mosque" category and moved remaining pictures into "Katchi Memon Mosque" category, everything looked like these were duplicate categories about the same building. Meanwhile I got the difference. If both categories were sufficiently formatted from the beginning on (e.g. one could see both buildings' location, there were Wikidata infobox with correct coordinates, etc.), this misunderstanding would not have occured. --A.Savin 16:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

A.Savin, what is your aversion to discussion when there is an obvious disagreement? As an admin, is it your role to bluntly override and impose your view on a category that has obviously different buildings and heritage ID's? This after threatening to block me three times with a final warning that if I did anything else I would be blocked, so to make sure that I wouldn't dare to correct an obvious mistake on your part? That is a powerful method of being in control. And you are excusing your failure to recognize the obvious difference in buildings and heritage IDs on a lack of infoboxes? Should not an admin be more responsible in categorizing? If that is your way of categorizing (and deleting correct cats meanwhile), then I have to wonder what the (actual, not written) standards are for being an admin on the Commons. Kalbbes (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

"a category that has obviously different buildings" is wrong, at the time of deletion the same building (New Memon Mosque) was in both categories. It is definitely not me who produced that mess which, luckily, is now resolved. --A.Savin 20:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

• NoahJohnson123 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

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

•  Done User blocked for 1 week by EugeneZelenko. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• KC photos 23 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good morning

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

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

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

I have deleted some files and corrected a few others where {{PD-art}} was applicable. IdaS7 Please note that you cannot make up any Creative Common licence where there is none at the source website. If the original artist has died more than 70 years ago, however, there is a good chance that the painting is out of copyright. Depending on the country of origin of the painting, you may then use {{PD-art-two}} with a template for the country of origin (e.g. Austria, Germany, etc.) and one template for the United States (typically PD-US-expired). If the artist died just fairly recently like Franta, you cannot upload their paintings. De728631 (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@De728631: User has uploaded more of this. Example from today: File:Hugo-vogel-a-6728904.jpg. Should we block or what do we do? Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I have given them a final warning and an explanation how to use the PD-art templates. Any more new uploads with a fake CC licence will lead to a preventive block. De728631 (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal threat with wikimail.

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

tranlate:

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

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

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

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

On this file the license is open, for a few other files my friends will set the license to the source pages soon. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about my old family scanned photos, I understood the rules (I do not know who is the author, so I will upload this photos in the year 2040. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

I have always trusted checkusers of other projects, including en.wiki. But abusing multiple accounts in en.wiki does not mean, that these accounts are used for abusing in Commons. I'll block one of the accounts, but not others. Taivo (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

That's fine Taivo and thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

•  Blocked for month. - FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 10:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Capitano1988 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

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

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

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

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

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

• Othersyouknoe (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• K SCREAM artis (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Fuckyoumad (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Snacrew (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• MEMBER_SG (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• K_scream (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

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

Thanks for the notice, BevinKacon. All accounts blocked, most uploads deleted. Some of the uploads are used in Draft:K Scream. This draft is unlikely to see ever the article space but I will not speedy such cases. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/K scream has been opened to give en:wp the opportunity to cleanup this mess on their project. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The accounts have been blocked and tagged. The draft has been deleted. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dreamy Jazz for the notification. I've now speedied the two remaining uploads. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• @AntiCompositeBot, Deletion Notification Bot, AntiCompositeNumber, and Eatcha:

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

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

This is an incorrect use of two bot accounts because

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

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

I will make the bot(Deletion Notification Bot) ignore DRs created by AntiCompositeBot. This should solve all issues on my side. // Eatcha (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

An alternative would be to ignore requests from bot-flagged accounts, hence avoiding the likelihood of automated mass reuse. Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The deletion tags from AntiCompositeBot are not DRs, they are {{Nld}} placed as part of an approved bot task. While a human may have been able to fix the file pages, that does not change the fact that at the time the bot scanned them, the files had had no source, author, license, or any other information as required by Commons:Project scope/Evidence. This had been the case for over a week. It is your responsibility as the uploader to ensure that your files are uploaded in compliance with Commons policy.

@Eatcha: AntiCompositeBot in it's current configuration can take up to 10 minutes to notify users of a deletion, in order to group notifications together. If you feel that ignoring the bot/all bots entirely is the best solution, go ahead and do that. My recommendation, however, would be to delay notifications for at least 30 minutes. That would also allow human editors a chance to fix the lack of notification on their own, before the bot swoops in. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me? I do not operate WMF servers, I would appreciate it if you did not blame me for their failure. The files were correctly uploaded with image page text. If you believe those actually responsible for posting blank pages should sort them out, go comment on Phab:T179884, open for over 2 years and is remarkably enough high priority with no progress.

If you want your bot task to be helpful, you could add a category to images uploaded by me which need attention, so that myself or the volunteer that actually requested I uploaded these images can repair the damage from WMF operational outages without arbitrary deadlines, rather than posting huge warnings on my talk page which are literally speedy deletion warnings, threatening to delete within a week.

Please ensure that it is your account name against deletion notices of any kind, not a bot. It seems pointless to waste volunteer time chasing up your misuse of your bot account, or raising a request for a 'crat to de-flag your bot account on this basis.

P.s. with regard to Commons:Project scope/Evidence, do you believe I need this advice? Read what I posted above, anyone can read the EXIF on these files, or look at the uploaded document itself, or even the filename, to instantly know these are public domain. Files like this should never be at risk of deletion.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

That phab task appears to be unrelated, as the file page was created with the upload in this case. In any case, it is your responsibility to ensure that every file you upload has the source, license, and author properly indicated per COM:L. This applies to manual, semi-auto, and automatic uploads. While I am responsible for edits my bot makes, I am not the one making those edits. It would be confusing and disingenuous to link to anything other than my bot's user page while notifying users about deletion. The bot user page contains the bot operator information, shutoff links, and task description as required by COM:Bots. If you feel that edits made according to policy and as part of an approved bot task are violations of the bot policy, you are welcome to discuss it with a crat. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

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

As explained at the start of this thread Nominated for deletion by AntiCompositeBot. I am a software, please do not ask me questions but the user who nominated your file for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) is factually incorrect and confusing because the massive lengthy template warning the user a file will be deleted within 7 days, is not signed by a person, nor even links to the person that nominated the file for deletion.

The idea that a user then has to surf around and interpret more templates to discover a bot operator, and on yet another user talk page after that might be able to ask "what's this about?" is not the way deletion warnings are supposed to work.

In particular if someone leaves multiple large notices on my talk page, I will discuss them on my talk page. I'm not actually obligued to even ping someone not mentioned with the notice, as it is the person leaving warning notices that has responsibility to watch the user pages they are leaving warnings on. I am not required to ask questions in different places, as the person leaving notices has a requirement on them to be able to explain, justify or withdraw them.

Obfuscation of responsibility is a misuse of the bot flag.

As for repairing the files this was already done by the requester for this task. That was hardly a matter of contention, only the logical fact that responsibility for threatening warning notices has to always be a person, not a bot account, not a "help desk". --Fæ (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: I think the important is that files with no license etc. is tagged and that the uploader gets a notice. I do not really think that it is important why there is no license etc. on the file. Shit happens but the only way to clean it up is to tag the file and inform the uploader. If uploader does not fix it then the admin deleting the file will hopefully have a look at the file and actually check if the file have a license or not before pressing delete. The bot is there to help uploader (and Commons). In the ideal world the uploader check the file after it is uploaded to make sure that everything is okay. If uploader does that then the bots will have nothing to report.

And why report it to AN instead of asking the users who own the bot? No need to answer. Just my opinion. --MGA73 (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• User: Aguilas El Ambiente (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued attempts at advertising after warning for doing so.

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

 Done. I blocked the user for a month. Taivo (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• User: Johnt96 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: All uploads are copyvios.

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

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

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

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

I should add that one of their confirmed socks EndofAll2020 on en:wikipedia replaced the version of the John Nicolson portrait that PhotoBooth11 is trying to delete here on Commons.Slp1 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• It doesn't show up in Category:Copyright violations even if I manually add it to the category. Weird. It's not possible to add the category using HotCat. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

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

A functional DR is now at Commons:Deletion requests/Data:CapitolHillAutonomousZone.map. —RP88 (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

 Done Deleted uploads and blocked as NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: You missed File:Tyuiopppppfghjk.jpg (which is first and foremost a nonsense title, second a copyvio from a yet unknown source); and the other remaining image which although under a deletion discussion could probably be speedied as a clear misuse of this as a webhost (CSD U5 on WP, I guess there's one here for that too) without too much objection. RandomCanadian (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Weird, the mass delete page must have missed those. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Walther16 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

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

Hi, I answered in the talk page. I arrived from the (controverse) Italian article to the Wikimedia page. I confess I was frightened. However, I'll stop, of course. Perhaps a look on this category could be useful. Thank you, yours, --Walther16 (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Fæ: Please try to discuss with user BEFORE the AN/U (who has agreed to stop his uploads since my message) instead of creating another instant drama you are a specialist of. Yours, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No thanks, this was vandalism. It needs mass reversion and so can be raised here. Please do not shut down vandalism reports, it's unhelpful. As are personal attacks to malign the character of other contributors. Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you ignore it @Fæ: but I launch a few hundreds deletion requests each day (DRs and SDs) and I wait patiently their closing by an Administrator (even if they are several months old) because I know there's a huge backlog. You should know that Administrators are not at your instant service and don't have to stop and take stock at your conveniance to speedy DRs. You should know too that it's SDs that are generally challenged and transformed into regular DRs to allow discussion, not the contrary. And perhaps uploaders of these images targeted by Walther16 have something to say to defend their uploads. But they are things (among others) you seems not to care of... so it's funny you talk about "wasting a lot of volunteer time." --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed vandalism and disruptive. Reverts would be good as in earlier situations some pictures in a mass action are removed because of all the confusion. --Hannolans (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No it wasn't. We have servers in Virginia these days which means this applies https://vacode.org/18.2-372/ .Geni (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2020 UTC)

• Care to clarify and expand on the subject, Geni? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  Pinging @Geni for Tuvalkin.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• We are in fact subject to obscenity laws thus making it a legitimate concern.Geni (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Fæ below: If this is for real, then we should not have servers in Virginia: WMF servers should be located only in civilized places, for known reasons concerning copyright and freedom of speech. Lets discuss this elsewhere, with wide exposure. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Most places in the US have obscenity laws; Wikipedia seems to imply every state in the US except Oregon. They're very hard to enforce; arguably, any work that is in scope should pass the "have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value" rule, and juries have not been friendly with attempts to criminalize something so common. That rule is so strict, I'd almost argue that we shouldn't have anything that doesn't pass it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Absolutely unacceptable behavior. The category in question is as meaningless as, say, Category:American churches in Britain. Ghirlandajo (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted the category and fully protected it against recreation for a year. Taivo (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I was never notified of any discussion about this, as should have been done. How can I explain anything or defend myself without being notified? User Stolbovsky is pursuing a personal vendetta against me and keeps requesting deletions of things I have created or added (such as here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Worldwide_News_Ukraine.jpg). There is a variety of Ukrainian churches that exist all over the world. A good example would be the category I created for Ukrainian churches in the United States as a parent category for all the categories of Ukrainian churches that exist in the United States. Now, Ukrainian denominations are persecuted in Russia, but they do exist, including Ukrainian Orthodox, Ukrainian Greek Catholic and so on. And so a parent category for them does make sense as well. --Sanya3 (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I unprotected and restored the category. At first, Sanya should be mentioned about the discussion. At second, a lot of countries have Ukrainian churches (look Category:Ukrainian churches by country), why not Russia? I removed some categories and I am warning now Sanya not to overcategorize files and categories. Taivo (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

At first, Sanya was mentioned, just look at least at the name of the theme (and then once or twice in the text). At second, I wrote that the whole category tree Category:Ukrainian churches should be deleted as meaningless, not only in Russia. All subcategies of it were created by Sanya, we do not have anything similar for any other churches. It is ok to use such categories as "Ukrainian Greek Catholic" or "Ukrainian Orthodox", but form "Ukrainian churches in /country/" is strange and nonsence. There are no French churches in Germany, Russian churches in Poland and so on. None of wiki has such category. --Stolbovsky (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

And what about warning about his blaming in "Russian chauvinism", "Russian imperialism" and now "personal vendetta". Or it is ok behavior? --Stolbovsky (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Havsjö: That was a block, not a ban.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: okay, block then? I dont see what this changes with what I was reporting on, namely the continuation of replacing images with his own amateur filters which was the cause for the previous blocks. --Havsjö (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for a week originally, then Rodhullandemu blocked for a month. Clearly this was not a deterrant so I have indeffed. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Will have a look tomorrow. If I remember right we've had a very similar case about 2 years ago, lasted many weeks and was CU'd. --Achim (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Achim55, more for you, I added some help for you this time:

• Ashy63 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, only needs block, files ok
• Dryuy356 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user can delete all files
• Nasimamz (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user can delete all files
• Najmapho56 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, only needs block, files ok
• Nodihive44 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user can delete the two logos, leave the other upload

Good luck!--BevinKacon (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

All blocked and nuked, also

• Priencenoyr23 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Rehab24 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

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

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

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

• Santiago Plá Casuriaga (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

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

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

• Santiago0812pe per SVU on Spanish wikipedia is sockuppet of Alessandro261 and others account that here have multiple copyvios deleted and another very suspect uploads. Take care about them, please Ezarateesteban 17:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Pinging @Cobatfor as uploader.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Personal attack on user. Clearly an axe to grind. Already blocked on en:WP. This is what happens when you desysop the wrong people. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

 Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Maazarshad45 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

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

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

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

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

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

Bot spammer now using Flickr images to spam.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coming as a disinterested user, File:Omid Community.jpg is a picture with no meaningful EXIF data, at web sizes and overcompressed (note the JPEG artifacts at the top), and as far as I can tell, without a precise location, it must have been from a helicopter, unless there's a surprise skyscraper taller than anything you can see in the photo or at w:fa:شهرک امید. File:Javid Nikpour 01.jpg is a fairly skilled artistic photograph, which was a bad choice of styles if it was done for Wikipedia. File:Iman Farzin at 2018 FIFA World Cup - Asian Qualifiers.jpg is from an accredited photographer, and has a 2020 date in the infobox. File:Iman Farzin in Rio 2016 Olympic Games.jpg is likewise from an accredited photographer. All these are likely copyvios.

I was writing these up as I got to them, and I happened to get to this one last. File:Iman Farzin at the AFC Champions League 2017.jpg says "Copyright holder: photoaman.com" in the EXIF, and lo and behold, that's the "First Iranian Sport Photo Agency" according to the headline on their website. And I thought there might only be circumstantial evidence up to this point. They should all be deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@user:Prosfilaes thanks for your clear explains. about File:Omid Community.jpg I made it via my own helishot and not with a helicopter. I will add the precise location into the information. File:Javid Nikpour 01.jpg I agree with you that it is not a good choise for wikipedia and I'll try to replace it with another picture. about File:Iman Farzin at 2018 FIFA World Cup - Asian Qualifiers.jpg it is taken by my self as an accredited sport photographer in Iran and I have the rights to use it without watermarks. I will do changes about the information. about File:Iman Farzin in Rio 2016 Olympic Games.jpg you can not find it anywhere esle and I am the only one who has the photo and right to use it. It doesn't violate any copyright rules. and finally about File:Iman Farzin at the AFC Champions League 2017.jpg, I have the same comments as File:Iman Farzin at 2018 FIFA World Cup - Asian Qualifiers.jpg --MHosseinafshar (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe you. It's impossible for me to look at the whole set of images and come to the conclusion that that you are uploading your own works and not copied materials. Something like the original File:Omid Community.jpg might help, and under no conditions should File:Iman Farzin at the AFC Champions League 2017.jpg be kept without an OTRS permission directly from photoaman.com. It feels like webpics, not the work of one photographer uploading works to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@user:Prosfilaes how can I provide you back with the original file File:Omid Community.jpg ? and how to provide the OTRS permission from photoaman.com ? Let me know and I will provide you all you need. Thanks--MHosseinafshar (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@MHosseinafshar: please open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail should be sent to our permissions department at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. All mentioned files are suspicious and must have the permission. Taivo (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Taivo @user:Prosfilaes Ok thanks for informing me. I will prepare and send the OTRS email to your permission department as soon as possible. Sorry for any misunderstanding.--MHosseinafshar (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tms talkpage may also need revdelling. –Davey2010^Talk 01:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Thanks for the quick answer. Tm (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: And what about the dozens of deletion request that this vandal opened? Will they stay open?

I was wondering the same thing. These weren't just simple edits we can revert. Whole processes were started. Normal Op (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I've asked Huntster if he'd delete them given the fact the IP's a troll but that's up to them, Commons allows sock images so my £10 wager is Commons will allow sock/troll DRs too. –Davey2010^Talk 01:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Missed is not my issue, but yes you did something wrong, IMHO of course: There was no need for a procedural close of Commons:Deletion requests/File:COLUMBUS STATE STATUE REMOVED.jpg because I had already removed the rude wording and the file is not an "own work" as declared by the uploader. Your close did not punish anyone but me and gave a reward to the uploader. IMHO (again). Regards. E4024 (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

E4024, you are welcome to re-nominate with a considered rationale if you wish. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Known vandal, kid or insane from the UK. I blocked 2A04:4A43:4C00::/38 for a month, 2A02:C7D:3C1A:7300::/64 is already blocked for a month, and Nick blocked 2.216.188.240 for one day, should be extended if it becomes necessary. --Achim (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010 and Huntster: The cranky kid is back as IP 2A04:4A43:4C7F:AE6D:EDD8:D4D6:5865:6F80. Tm (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

user:Achim55 has already blocked this IP. Tm (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

 Comment@Huntster, Davey2010, and Achim55: The kid is back again with IP 92.40.182.4, opening several dr as vandalism, deletion request that i closed as an non administrator closure do this being vandalism. If an administrator would like to see if all was closed regularly or do the proper blocks, please do so. Tm (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you please stop pinging me - I'm not here 24/7 and when I am I don't bother looking at ANU or at what the IP's done, Sorry if this seems harsh but I'm not an admin so therefore other than revert him there's not much else I can do - I simply can't be bothered with the IP nor do I care what he does, Once Commons adjusts its policies and to be blunt starts giving a shit then so will I = Until then the IP's not my problem. –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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

@Fæ:  Done and notified for you. Thanks Túrelio for deleting the userpage.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The decision to not notify the account, nor ping them was deliberate as their response here was not needed. This was not a discussion about user conduct, but just requesting information from someone with Spanish skills to help the user.

What they have now, is 3 huge warning signs, including warning about "promotion", which is far more likely to ensure they never come back. --Fæ (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: Then your post was not consistent with the purpose of this noticeboard, "Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance" or the editnotice "This page is for reporting users with behavioral problems." I call out promotional editors when I see them; Túrelio obviously agreed when deleting the user page.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, that's your opinion, that 3 huge warnings were needed, not help, and we don't give a fig if we drive this user away.

Thanks for that. My mistake. --Fæ (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: You're welcome. What percentage of users who have made 10 edits to WMF projects, but 0 edits furthering the goals of those projects, will learn what to do and not what to do by osmosis? I suspect it is very low.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

On the rule of thumb that 90% of newbies are going to be a bit pants, what you are proposing is that we should "unwelcome" all newbies by default, making a policy of bad faith underpin this project. Seems that you would need to change Commons:Administrators#Community_role to for this to fly and expect elected administrators to support this, which of course would make Commons an effective closed project. --Fæ (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Not at all, I AGF until I see evidence of bad faith. Every one of their edits was consistent with aggressive self-promotion.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment While I agree with Fæ on his original assessment and on his criticism of the way it was dealt with, my good faith concerning this particular user was somewhat shaken due to a tangent: Why spell their own name with two typos and, if that can be excused as typographic expediency (but if so, why the space?), what sort of syntax is this phrase using?: «Foto en su casa de una amigo» — this is not Unamuno, for sure. Fishy stuff.

Additionally, this is a subpage of the Administrators’ noticeboard, is it not? Why then is Jeff G., who is not an admin, responding to issues before any admin could react? Don’t get me wrong — in my ideal world both Fæ and Jeff would be mopholders of the highest rank, but it doesn’t seem like a good idea to do admin work without admins’ protections and formal responsibilities.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the typos show they were not 19, but one of the younger members of the same family described, or someone that knows the family, or someone cut & pasting some text from Facebook to create a Spanish-looking sock account, for whatever reason. No doubt if we went on a technical dive, including the one uploaded topless photo of a teenager, we could deduce an awful lot, but as the reason this thread was created was good faith concern for the welfare of someone potentially accidentally doxxing members of their family on a public website, let's not touch it further. --Fæ (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: It seemed that Fæ was not asking for an Admin's help at all, and I did wait for 1h36m before taking action. I have all the Admin boards on my watchlist because I have posted there before, and some people are not in the habit of pinging me when they respond. I also have been helping to maintain Template:Administrators' noticeboard and COM:FILTERT.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Per this, the user seems to have similar problems recently. Perhaps we should upgrade Commons:Disputed territories as a official policy for categorization?廣九直通車 (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. I do not want to block Djampa, because Herodium is controlled by Israel National Parks Authority. Taivo (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Taivo: What about blocking Djampa for misusing edit summaries for insults? (@Huldra: Can you provide the diff for that folle-dingue quip?) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, that Herodium is controlled by Israel National Parks, does not make it part of Israel: not even Israel claims that.

Secondly, Djampa undoes the "in Israel" edits with edit lines like "vandalism":

link,link, link, link, link

or edit-lines like: "THE LAND OF ISRAEL BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL!":

link, link, link, link, link

or edit-lines like: "La folle-dingue de Huldra est passée par là..":

link, link, link, link, link

There are loads more of examples of those three edit-lines, Huldra (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I support a block of the user for inappropriate edit-lines with sexists insults. If no one objects, I will take action with a 3 days block at 1800 CET today. Pleclown (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Pleclown (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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

• Looks like they changed their mind, admin should just speedy as G7, even though it is outside 7 days and 1 file is in use.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• @BevinKacon: Better state your opinion in the DR. I fear it’d be lost here. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I blocked Ckpixel indefinitely due to vandalism. Taivo (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

They were only blanking their own uploads, they've how edited their talk page.--BevinKacon (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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

@Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing): Please sign your notifications.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done User warned and uploads deleted Gbawden (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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

@Hangman'sDeath: I used such a function and notified the user for you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hangman'sDeath: They continued as 2600:1700:571:290:6DAE:7ED1:46D0:4B15.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked Ravager indefinitely due to vandalism, deleted his/her last remaining upload and semi-protected the anonymously edited file. Thank you for reverting vandalism! Taivo (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Taivo: Thanks, now they are back as Hoglin2019 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 09:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)