Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:49, 20 February 2021

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Note

Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
Notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

User:1989

An appropriate edit summary? [1] --A.Savin 16:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you judge this one too? 1989 (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate. Can't we all just get along? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 16:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whataboutism is always an extremely weak argument for discussion, 1989. But if you really feel the need to compare the current issue to the situation some months ago, you would (if your motivation would be fair and constructive) at least agree that I never edit-warred on your own talk page to push a comment there against your will. --A.Savin 16:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If someone on this project writes "Leave me alone", leave them alone. If you ignore that, it's bullying and a blanking with an edit comment of "fuck off" can be taken as a healthy one from someone who feels targeted or hounded. If you disagree, do as suggested and go to WMF T&S, they'll tell you that they are happy to consider a global ban of any account with a history of bullying, with no special treatment of those with functionary roles. It may even help them out by providing case studies for the forthcoming actioning of the UCoC. And no, we do not "all just get along", if someone asks you to leave them alone, they are not the aggressor, and you should not have to be asked again, or again, or again.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again. Is "Fuck off" an appropriate edit summary? I didn't insult 1989 on their talkpage, nor did I edit-war, nor hound them. I'm perfectly fine with leaving them alone. I simply don't need them. Since their desysop, I had no interaction for several months. They are seeking conflict with me, not the other way around. 1989 in fact doesn't care about Krok6kola. They are no friends or something, not a single one time 1989 wrote anything on K.'s talk page. The only reason why 1989 is always advocating K., no matter what problem with their edits is there, is seeking conflict with me. They obviously think that K. would be kind of a "red cloth" for me (which is bullshit of course). Is this all really normal? --A.Savin 17:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of desysop, given this persons performance against me and other users, I would gladly support a desysop, probably a ban too. The fact that my vote actually affected them so much they started hounding me by sarcastically welcomed me back and trolling me plus added this on their userpage is very unbecoming of an administrator. 1989 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's impressive how consistently you are ignoring any constructive argument just a small bit beyond of black and white. Maybe you should apply as judge in the Navalny's trial; they will be happy about such a perfect candidate for that. --A.Savin 18:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to be clear, "fuck off" is perfectly acceptable as an edit comment to someone who refuses to leave you alone after you have asked extremely clearly and unambiguously "leave me alone".

You are using this noticeboard to deliberately provoke and harass another user. There is no sysop action being requested here, this is now hounding. Please consider this thread closed. --Fæ (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"fuck off" is perfectly acceptable? Well, OK. --A.Savin 18:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The self-victimhood by comparing your chosen "enemy" as an ally of Putin is disgusting. You are harassing 1989. This is not acceptable from anyone, especially someone trusted with sysop rights. Please consider resigning the tools and the wisdom of not making any further replies to this thread, but taking the time to review your actions. --Fæ (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's more acceptable than bothering someone and immediately coming here over a single edit summary. meta:Don't be a jerk so can someone close this to stop this round and round fight? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban between A.Savin and 1989

As an uninvolved editor, I would like to propose an indefinite interaction ban between User:A.Savin and User:1989. I don't think blocking them would solve the issue, but an interaction ban most probably does so. If they can't leave each other alone voluntarily, the community should make them keep their distances from each other.

Here is a timeline of the recent interactions:

A.Savin needlessly and sarcastically says welcome back to 1989: "Welcome back, and I'm glad for you to get your usual honeypot again."
1989 says that A.Savin has a "bitter soul"[2] and asks them to leave them alone.
Despite the implications that they should leave each other alone, 1989 replies to A.Savin's comment and makes a reference to them using "Savin", not A.Savin who are different users [3]
A.Savin starts a new thread at 1989's talk page and calls their behaviour aggressive and harassment and informs that the other party may be reported to the WMF T&S [4]
1989 removes the thread with a "f* off" edit summary[5]
A.Savin shows that they think that anybody commenting about Krok6kola is in fact "seeking conflict with" them. They also use the word bulsh*. [6]

It should also be noted that about 5-6 months ago, 1989 blocked A.Savin which was lifted later and that event led in 1989's de-sysop vote.

Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:

edit each other's user and user talk pages;
reply to each other in discussions;
make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Commons, directly or indirectly;
undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.

However, they are allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support As the proposer. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

@4nn1l2: How exactly would this fix this persons conduct as an administrator? 1989 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a meaningful warning that such attitude won't be tolerated anymore from neither of you. If they continue to treat users like this as an admin, a de-sysope vote is not unthinkable. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting how you say that, when their terrible conduct has been going on for years. 1989 (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My conduct for years on Commons, 1989, is that I have uploaded 11,000 images, created thousands of categories, and closed thousands of RfD's. And nearly none of that actions ever were contested. Really not sure what is so terrible about that, 1989... --A.Savin 18:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This, right above me, is exactly why nothing has ever been done about their conduct, that and their admin privilege. When will this stop? 1989 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Noting that forcing an interaction ban means the community lacks necessary trust in the party that is a sysop. Just collapsed interactions above, which re-enforces the rationale that this interaction ban is justified. --Fæ (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @4nn1l2: Thanks for taking the time. But let me say that I really didn't ever have that much to do with 1989, apart from the story with their block of mine and following desysop. This was five or four months ago or so, and since than I didn't have any interaction for a long time. 1989 just doesn't interest me. By now I was tending to think that an IB is necessary for a very much more intensive interaction. I'm not even sure we already had examples here. In any event, an IB between me and Krok6kola probably would be much more logical, even though I'm still convinced that in most of our interactions I was fixed edits by Krok6kola in accordance with the guidelines such as COM:Categories. --A.Savin 18:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an observer, I think the interaction between you and 1989 is unhealthy enough (saying f word, sh*, making personal attacks [bitter soul], accusing the other party of harassment, taunting, resorting to the intervention of WMF T&S, etc) and there is no indication that this won't get worse. Maybe this IB makes you (and even Krok6kola) think about your interactions from now on. I know that you and Krok6kola have dispute over content, but at least that dispute has not fallen down to the level of incivility, personal attacks, and harassment claims, as far as I know. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks --A.Savin 19:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4nn1l2: an IB between me (Krok6kola) and A.Savin is a great idea. Support an IB between Krok6kola and A.Savin. Krok6kola (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Proposing a two-way interaction ban is ridiculous. You do realize this whole thing started was because the other person couldn't resist talking shit when I said nothing to them. I'd support a one-way interaction ban, but not this. No way. 1989 (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they started the current incident does not excuse you for making personal attacks [bitter soul] and telling f words to other users. The fact that you are referring to the other party's writings as "talking sh*" is another indication that a 2-way interaction ban is needed. It is really not prudent to continue using vulgar words in this thread. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. When a bully starts hounding you for no reason whatsoever, just ignore them otherwise I'll be in trouble too, right? That's how this is gonna go? 1989 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tired to say over and over again that this is highly unjust and unfair, but at least try to think a tiny little bit rationally, 1989. What on Earth might be a reason for myself to start "hounding you for no reason whatsoever"? And this, after you have lost your admin bit anyway and I didn't have any interaction with you for the following months. By the way. Your apology is worth exactly nothing, I guess? --A.Savin 22:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such a tone-deaf reply and yet I'm going to be punished with them... Are you serious? 1989 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you might have missed that I would agree on a voluntarily two-way IB (see straight below). So, it's your turn now to agree; no idea who is actually punished here (blocks, by the way, are not punitive too). --A.Savin 22:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear. From my understanding, a voluntary IB is a true IB, which has all the terms of IB and their breach is subject to a block. The difference is, it's an agreement, because both sides have to agree that any further interaction is counter-productive for the time being. --A.Savin 22:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, 1989. From my perspective you are not innocent here. After you tell them to stay away from you, it is you who approaches them[7]. It is you who uses f word and sh* against them. Your attitude is as hostile as theirs. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would agree on a voluntarily two-way IB. --A.Savin 21:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Two-way interaction ban, the bad blood between A.Savin and 1989 has gone on long enough and the sniping each other has gotten to the point that the community has to act in an attempt to remove the interaction that is clearly not healthy. Bidgee (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The goal is to reduce friction here and if two people get on each other's nerves, they need to figure out something else to do with the millions of things that can be done here. You can't tell me it's impossible to not annoy each other. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from the little I saw I think A. Savin is being intentionally antagonistic towards 1989 and the sarcastic, veiled threats are inappropriate. In can imagine that 1989 feels hounded by A. Savin and I don't blame him for telling him to F off. Being hounded and bullied is no fun Gbawden (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbawden: What is the alternative or your suggestion/solution? 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ibans are too flawed to ever be much use. They have two typical failings, and I think both would be a risk here. Firstly they are a symmetrical response to an asymmetric problem. We have two Ibans under discussion here already, and what's the common factor? I don't see any calls for Ibans between Krok6kola and 1989 - why should they be tarred with such a punitive measure? Secondly, the effectiveness of an Iban relies on its observation by those named, and by their willingness to breach it and their influence in order to do so without further redress. A. Savin is an admin and so has considerable power and status over mere editors. They can ~~flaunt~~flout an Iban (I have no faith that they won't) and if 1989 were to even complain of that, 1989 would then be at risk of blocks etc. for having breached that Iban. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: I can't understand your second point. How can one flaunt being ibanned? Being banned is negative in nature. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps the word should be "flout"? Sorry to be a pedant, but I have told solicitors off in court for that error. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, that's my typo - exactly as Rod pointed out. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No !vote from me. Just a note: this appears to largely be a "two-way street" and neither party wants an iban. Furthermore, ibans between prolific contributors can sometimes be more disruptive than not so are best avoided unless in exceptional circumstances. At this stage, making a case for harassment/hounding in either direction would need to include copious diffs IMO. Failing that, as the problematic interactions seem confined to user talk pages, perhaps the best way to minimize disruption is to just quickly close threads like this one before they take up a lot of people's time. A prayer for whomever dared to make such a closure, though. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support An interaction ban between A.Savin and 1989 is more than heavy enough, but an interaction ban + de-sysop is shooting with a canon to a mosquito. (PS, "shooting with a canon to a mosquito" is a translation of this Dutch expression: Met een kanon op een mug schieten, and it means you're coming with something bigger while it's totally unnecessary.) Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker ^{Overleg • CA} 14:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban proposal between Krok6kola and A.Savin

@4nn1l2: an IB between me (Krok6kola) and A.Savin is a great idea.

This would prevent the harassing vandalism templates and threats to block me from him (5 in the last six months - see my unblock request at the bottom of my talk page for list of vandalism and threats to block templates from A.Savin), and other bad interactions:

e.g.deleting my categories as I'm creating them

Leading to attempts to block me as just happened above on this page where I was unjustly blocked without ever received any warnings and then unblocked so now I have a block record

and another examplepreviously with help from Jeff G that was used to justify the block mentioned above

A.Savin never posts constructively on my talk page anyway, and he never answers questions by me on his e.g[8], so there would be no loss from an IB there.

A.Savin is the only support for blocking me. He has been found to be too "involved" to do so himself.

Support an IB between Krok6kola and A.Savin (from the editor formerly known as Kalbbes) Krok6kola (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Krok6kola: Don't you mean User:Kalbbes? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 02:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: Opps! Fixed. Thank you. Krok6kola (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Krok6kola: You're welcome. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If both of you agree with an IBAN, just avoid each other voluntarily. It is not necessary to make it official. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: Will you support this? It would relieve us both and allow peace between us. Each could lose the anger over the other. Krok6kola (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If someone goes ahead and promises to be monitoring your categorization edits on daily basis and fix all the mess you are producing (over-cat, creating duplicated categories, blanking of pages etc. pp.), then yes indeed, I will agree. But by now I'm the only one who cares whatsoever. --A.Savin 05:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is to retract that. We don't need proxy battles here. I'd suggest you move on. What we do need is people to follow the process of either listing the problematic categories for deletion or use the talk pages to discuss the categorization rather than a general "you are bad at categorizing" vagueness. At the end of the day, if you really can't just let someone else do whatever categories they want, I think you need to take a break from here. And if you are the sole person who cares, is it possible that the categorization isn't as wrong as you think? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.Savin (desysop prior discussion)

"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"?, the answer have been no of course. Furthermore although he did not block the user himself, I would not be surprised if he asked by email to one or more other administrators to do so.

Quesion: when the community will decide to desysop A.Savin? How many disputes will we have to undergo? when this paragraph will be closed, how long will we have to wait before a new conflict arises? 1 month, 2 months, 3 months 6 months? with another experiment user? or with another administrator? his confrontational behavior combined with responsibilities do not go together, whether for his own good or the good of the community. I have said it before and repeated several times. His confrontational behavior is not worthy of the status of administrator and although he has not abused of the tools he should not be administrator. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a proposal following Commons:Administrators/De-adminship? No opinion on it but it's not like this is completely new. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks like A.Savin follows Krok6kola in order to find his mistakes, I find it a quite disturbing. In particular as the bad faith of Krok6kola is far from to be obvious. I also wonder how @Steinsplitter: has been notified about the edits he quotes for the block rationale here and here, as those links are indeed overcat but it is not blatant at first view, because the overcat is not direct, and even Krok6kola who made the edits can have missed that it was indeed overcat and can have acted in good faith. So I really wonder by what miracle Steinsplitter managed to saw those edits, and to see the overcategorisation. Only someone who search that in particular, who tracks down the slightest fault of Krok6kola in search of a pretext for a conflict (at best) or for a block (at worse), or who is particulary interested in the topic "Cultural heritage monuments in Sindh" can have noticed those edits. And again for the 50th time, this behavior is not worthy of an administrator, to check public contributions is of course allowed, but to track someone on order to win (or maintain) a conflict is not less than hounding and a kind of harassement, and this battleground mentality is not worth of an administrator (and even quite questionable for a non-administrator). Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Steinsplitter has likely saw an edit war because of the rollback tag, this is not what I usually watch, this is why I did not think of this possibility when I asked how Steinsplitter managed to saw. This in no way excuses the pursuit made by A.Savin which lasts for several months, and who is again responsible for climbing. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussions from keyword search, may not be complete

2021 Performed a protection for a category while in dispute with Krok6kola and the reason for it is: "Excessive vandalism"
2021 A.Savin continue to use warning template against experimented users despite that everyone said not to do it, hence the creation of another conflict
2021 A.Savin, after sued the same user for several months, intends to continue to pursue that user.
2021 Despite that almost every one said that "warnings about vandalism" as well as "Templating experienced users with vandalism-notices" were not appropriate, A.Savin did the same thing to the same user (not the same user name, but well the same user) 6 months later, continued to to sue the user and escalate an editing war, leading to the block of the user. While the overcategorisation is not so obvious because it is not direct.
2021 "when will you finally stop this embarassing bullshit that I would not allow to touch my files in general"
2020 When the community will decide to desysop Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 86#A.Savin
2020 "consider this a warning" told to an experienced user and climbing up to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 77#Correct use of categories - and an admin's behaviour
2018 A.Savin thinks that challenge ourselves our Adminitrative status by submitting that status to a community vote more than one time is a waste of time. That's very reflective on how A.Savin cares about community opinion, on his potential ability to question his behavior, or on even just his intention to challenge himself.
2017 Prior discussion for De-adminship Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 65#A.Savin
2017 [...] calls other users vandal, corrupt, crook and thief Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 64#A.Savin
Note that A.Savin didn't call Tm corrupt. Here was the exact quote of A.Savin closing the unblock discussion:
```
OK, I got it. Usual corruption here instead of encouraging of quality work and discouraging of spam and editcount pushing. Unblocking & unwatching. --A.Savin 22:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
```
The "crook and thief" accusation is also misleading, as A.Savin used the term party of crooks and thieves, which is a Russian expression. panda kekok 9 01:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2016 (Tangential discussion including interaction between A.Savin and 1989 removed from view, see thread source, or page history --Fæ (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)) → reinstalled by me Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Was blocked previously for harassment

This block was an error, it was lifted well before expiration, and later also hidden from my block log. Also, the comment by me that was reason for the block, was perfectly justified, and INeverCry later was banned by the WMF. So this link is a blatant violation of COM:Privacy policy ~~by Christian Ferrer~~, as well as a violation of INC's ban. This will of course be recorded by me. --A.Savin 15:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong on all here, 1/ I did not put that link 2/ this is a public log where it is talk publicly by you about your block 3/ this is not a violation of any ban. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops my bad, please excuse. It was 1989 who put the link. Here is the diff. --A.Savin 16:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This block was most certainly not an "error" this person is claiming. 1989 (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive how you eventually even refused to discuss with me straight, 1989. "This person"... Maybe a little bit more creative label would be "Berlin patient"? No, not this one, but this one. --A.Savin 16:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, did you actually know that a hidden log entry is non-public information anyway, even if it was hidden as a courtesy? --A.Savin 16:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was there and I felt exactly the same as Revent at the time of the block, I even found him brave, and I was even grateful. The potential behavior of INC is in no way a justification or an excuse for the behavior of A.Savin. Revent was very very kind by agreeing that the block be removed from the log. I see it more as a greatness of the soul of someone who seeks to lower the pressure, rather than someone who recognizes an error. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2016 threat of legal action, which is clearly prohibited by Wikmedia TOU
2015 denigration of an administrator, accusation against 2 users
2012 Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 38#Questionable RFA vote by User:A.Savin

--Fæ (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1989 (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support desysop Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no idea what is being proposed here, as it just seems to be random dirt digging. The Usual Suspects turn up here to yet again grumble that an admin they don't like is still an admin. Doing that reflects badly: we have enough grudge bearing in the last 24 hours without you adding to it, and you guys deserve a trout. I see two users (1989 and A.Savin) both lost their cool over the block (by another admin) of someone for overcat. I'm generally opposed to interaction bans. I would favour at this point both users are admonished for personal attacks and grudge bearing, and strongly encouraged to avoid each other in future: let other people deal with such matters. The Krok6kola interaction ban self-proposal is a transparent attempt to seek to censor a critic. They do appear to have categorisation issues that need dealt with in some way. Suggest all these sections be closed and folk move on. -- Colin (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The title of this section has changed since I wrote the above. Oppose de-sysop. Obviously people should not have cross words with each other, but this is petty at the level of noise. The de-sysop process being abused, and I ask those nominating and supporting this, yet again, to realise they bring shame upon themselves at this continued grudge bearing. Do you realise that if your level of de-sysop amounts to little more than "he said a bad word", you will find yourself in trouble if an admin pal of yours ever says a bad word and you bleat "no misuse of tools" in response. Games. Games. Grow up. -- Colin (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who hasn't been involved in the politics of Wikimedia Commons and as such don't belong to any particular side here, I would tend to disagree on this. I find this statement by A.Savin above rather disconcerting:

If someone goes ahead and promises to be monitoring your categorization edits on daily basis and fix all the mess you are producing (over-cat, creating duplicated categories, blanking of pages etc. pp.), then yes indeed, I will agree. But by now I'm the only one who cares whatsoever. --A.Savin 05:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

as this is to me A.Savin admitting that he is persistently pursuing and seeking out this editor. As an administrator, A.Savin is entrusted with enforcing the guidelines of Wikimedia Commons which has been agreed on through community concensus. The administrator position does not give him any rights above any other editor to dictate or define how other editors should contribute to Wikimedia Commons as long as they stay within the community guidelines. If he finds himself in a prolonged disagreement with another editor on this project on how to interpret these guidelines it's very obvious he should not keep keep pursuing this editor but rather disengange himself from this editor and ask other administrators to step in for a second opinion and to follow up the situation. Instead here, A.Savin has kept on hounding Krok6kola over, from what we can judge by the warnings on Krok6kola talk page, is a periode of over a year. This is obviously not acceptable. Now, when we in addition hear that this is not the first time that A.Savin has been in trouble due to this kind of behaviour, and that he has in fact previously been blocked for similarly pursuing specific editors, I think there's every reason to be concerned about A.Savins ability to perform his duties as an unbiased and fair administrator. TommyG (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, whereas not the best behavior, it it nowhere near the desysop level.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What I'm doing here on Commons, I do to the best of my knowledge and belief; I'm a human and may occasionally make mistakes, but you always can friendly advice me about that; in general I'm friendly to people who are friendly to me, and in most cases even to those who are not. And I certainly didn't abuse any sysop's tools. --A.Savin 12:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm friendly to people who are friendly to me, That's some of the problem: you use it as, "be nice and agree with me, or else I'll turn against you, and I have the power to block you". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm friendly to people who are friendly to me, and in most cases even to those who are not. user:A.Savin, do you consider friendly to falsely accuse other of being sockpuppets? Or is any possible explanation to the phrase that you said that "you Tuvalkin that you use sockpuppets to "vote" in deletion requests"? An clear answer would help understand by what you meant with "Tuvalkin that you use sockpuppets to "vote"". Tm (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)

Comment A.Savin, I too do the best that I can and am a human being and make mistakes. I also am open to all friendly advice on what I am doing wrong and how I can improve. I try to be friendly always to others. And was so to you at first, A.Savin, but my attempts seemed to have had the opposite effect.
Unfortunately I lack the technical knowledge most others here seem to have, but I have cultural knowledge so I am creative in the creation of categories. In other parts of the world where I do most of my editing, I have no problems. But I would welcome a mentor or someone who would be willing to help me understand the mistakes I do make in a way I can understand. "Rollback" tags do not explain. When I do make mistakes, I become aware when editors come to my page and explain. I always apologize and try to comply with their wishes. Reading COM:OVERCAT is not helpful to me, and there does not seem to be a consensus on the Category talk page about what it constitutes. So I would appreciate any help in correcting my faults. My motives are only to improve categorization on the Commons, not to cause problems or harm. I want to make peace with you, A.Savin and I appreciate your beautiful photographs. Krok6kola (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As already stated above, I'm happy to stop any interaction. When reverting your edits, I did nearly everything to the best of my knowledge and belief and in accordance with COM:Categories. I did not stalk you, as you claimed several times (last time as recently as tonight). The only problems are/were your edits, not your person. Please do not confuse cause with effect.

It would be better though, someone familiar with Pakistan would take an other look. I'm not aware about any active Pakistani users here, but maybe their "neighbours" from Iran, India or Bangladesh might wish to help a bit. By now I seem to be the only one who cares. Did you ever visit Pakistan? I did. That's why parts of that categories matter to me. But I'm also aware that there is no mentoring on Commons, unlike on wikipedia. So I would give up and move on. --A.Savin 15:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is sufficient evidence of macho harassing behaviour over a period of years to start a desysop discussion. All Wikimedia projects must take harassment seriously, including holding project administrators to account based on evidence, not just majority popularity or unpopularity. --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, where is this "sufficient evidence" for "macho harassing" "over a period of years"? --A.Savin 13:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not too sure that this meets the threshold for a de-adminship, has there been abuse of sysop tools? I see nothing in COM:DE-ADMIN where non-sysop behaviour is grounds for a removal process. I'm rather disappointed with the constant sniping and unhelpful comments. Even if A.Savin is contacting other "admins" off Commons (which is an unfounded allegation), the admin undertaking the admin action it responsible if it is a bad action, since all they have to do is ignore or say no. Bidgee (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is correct, but the desysop process refers to "serious offenses", and does not require there to be any evidence of an "abuse of sysop tools" in order to start a desysop vote. For example, were a sysop rights holder to be persistently bullying, promote hate speech, or disruptive in other ways without ever misusing the sysop tools, the community may judge this to be an offense serious enough to lose trust and fail to meet the requirements of Commons:Administrators#Community role. From the evidence and responses given earlier in this thread and earlier discussions, the specific requirement of prepared to work constructively with others has been repeatedly failed. Hounding others to provoke a response is the precise opposite of that requirement. --Fæ (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, where exactly did I "persistently bullying", "promote hate speech" (??), and/or being "disruptive in other ways"? --A.Savin 13:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a desysop vote, there will be a discussion section where you will be welcome to protest, be "curious", or even nit-pick over other people's past hypothetical statements, even where these logically made no claim whatsoever about you, if you really think that's an appropriate position to justify you can be trusted by the wider community, and an effective way of demonstrating that you do not hound other contributors. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a Presumption of guilt? Unbelievable. --A.Savin 14:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RFA system is well established, as is the desysop system, neither is intended as a judicial or criminal process. It is a fact that the current system measures popularity rather than competence or case evidence. If you want to propose changes, use COM:VPP, not this desysop "prior discussion". --Fæ (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ, if you want the COM:DE-ADMIN to go beyond on what is currently there, draft it. Or draft a Code of Conduct for Administrators, since I'm not going to use what I feel (personal opinion) when stating an view on what I see that currently exists. Again, I wish all editors would just walk away, rather than the current behaviour that we've seen. Bidgee (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"serious offenses" is precisely the wording from that document as agreed by community consensus. There is no requirement to be any evidence of an "abuse of sysop tools" for a desysop prior discussion to proceed. No change or proposal is needed to apply precisely the words of the existing official policy. --Fæ (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: The de-admin procedure was written in mind to prevent a desysop just because someone holds a grudge, which seems the case here. So I think your interpretation here, while maybe in line with the letter, is against the spirit of the policy. panda kekok 9 02:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does not hold water. It is both factually incorrect to parody this "vote for a vote" as a person with a "grudge" as this ignores the wealth of evidence of bad faith behaviours shown in the links and diffs above and igores the good faith votes of many contributors to this discussion, further the RFA and desysop processes are a community process, this suffers from being a majority popularity vote, but it is a vote of the community and does not have a specific outcome just because one person "with a grudge" or one person nominating one of their "pals" created it. --Fæ (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support: About time. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Admins should be held to a high standard, and should not inspire fear by ruling with an iron fist. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda ironic for someone who wants to be admin. panda kekok 9 02:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted and drama-seeking comment. Can you not try to start something? Thanks. 1989 (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted? Are you not reading COM:AN/B? Maybe you should stop with your "diva" tactics, leaving Commons then returning back when the cloud's are clear. panda kekok 9 02:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave Commons and come back (or not) whenever I damn well please, and the reasons for it are most certainly none of your business. Now stop this drama-seeking nonsense. 1989 (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but AFAIK, you're the one who's most likely to seek drama here. No wonder you got desysopped. EOD. panda kekok 9 03:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drama-seeking, rude, petty... with your attitude, you'll never touch the mop, I guarantee you that. EOD. 1989 (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Great disicion. As always let's protect and regret the users who just don't want to understand what's wrong with their contribution. --Stolbovsky (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which users would they be? This is a discussion about A. Savin, not anyone else. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Stolbovsky. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what Ymblanter says. But I do support ending all current Mexican standoffs. Natuur12 (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW I don't think we need to mention specific nationalities like this, especially on a multilingual wiki. --Rs chen 7754 23:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you could teach this non native speaking an alternate idiom that is synonymous with the commonly used idiom I used? Natuur12 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support We will hide and remove everything that prevents A.Savin from sleeping well. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Sorry for my, maybe, poor English) I am little bit know A. Savin and A. Savin is an adequate person. And I think he is one of the best from few number of (remained) Russian-speaking admins. I see much disputes on this page, but I think it's just bad moment (russian: неудачный момент) where all when all people are angry after 2 months of second COVID winter. (I'm not feel good too, BTW) --Brateevsky {talk} 19:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure we are allowed to be influenced by such external issues here. The general impression I gain from 13 years here is that we are supposed to leave our humanity at the door when we enter, and become some sort of mystical fairytale creatures or Enid Blyton personalities who are at all times "After you, Claude; No, after YOU, Cecil". There's no allowance for a bad hair day, being put in peril by non-socially distanced and unmasked morons or the myriad of other things that make you less than all sweetness and light. And the sooner WMF T&S and other realise that is wrong, the better. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support No abuse of tools, but abuse of status by using intimidation. Not what I would expect from an administrator on any Wikimedia site. --Rs chen 7754 23:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ymblanter. -- Geagea (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Colin, Rschen7754, Christian Ferrer, TommyG and own experience here with A. Savin only 2 weeks ago admonishing of behavior should help. Indeed I wouldn't like to miss his great fotos. But his aggressive behavior and attacking other users is scandalous. And it is not like he wants to make us believe, that he only would react aggressive, but he has talent to start attacking and offending either. Especially as an admin he should cooperate with AGF and realize that it's a wiki.Oursana (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support For several reasons with insults, threats and several other cases that havent stopped even after constant admonishing and for several years. Disclaimer: In a paricular case, as linked above, i was one of two users (the other one wasnt even related with this particular case) called by of being part of an Party of crooks and thieves i.e being corrupt. Besides the lame excuse of this being a russian expression, his phrase "Usual corruption here instead of encouraging of quality work" shows that he, in that paricular case, considered almost every other user and administrator as being corrupt as there can be any corruption without corruptors\corrupted\corrupts. Corruption does not exist in natural state but demands human intervention or, more simply, corruption does not exist in the abstract and without humans. Albeit how much spinning you may want to add to the contrary, this unproven accusations were meant as insults and not as mere and harmeless russian expressions or saying that there was corruption without corrupts. Tm (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I'd prefer sysops to stand for re-election after, say, 3 years. That would solve such problems automatically and would force some sysops to reconsider their behavior. --Achim (talk)

500% agree, this is why I did it by myself, I gave back my tools after 5 years (if I remember well) and I have made another request for adm. a few months later. And I will likely do again the same thing. A.Savin likely prefer keep his rights lifelong without having to make the slightest effort of behavior. Furthermore A.Savin thinks that this kind of thing is a "waste of time". That's very reflective on how A.Savin cares about community opinion. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian Ferrer: To be fair to A.Savin, he was responding to Davey2010 about your RfA being a waste of time. He was actually arguing that your second RfA is not a waste of time, because he opposed it. A "waste of community time" for him is "when someone [probably a good admin without any controversy] gives back the sysop tools for no logical reason and then, after short time, suddenly wants to have it back." panda kekok 9 03:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I would also support such a proposal (re-elections after 3 years for all admins which is currently done at the Hebrew Wikipedia). 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have tried this at NL-wiki (but those were annual re-elections). They mere were another source of drama, bickering and infighting. And still, the admins that showed higly toxic behavior got re-elected anyways. There's simply no time to carefully weight any evidence when there are several admins up for re-evaluation. Natuur12 (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If only we could have only administrators that are able to resign themselves and to ask to be reconfirmed by a new election in case there is controversy. But that would mean that we would only have good administrators. Obviously we are not here. And if in addition, the administrators not able to resign themselves were not encouraged to hang on, it would help too. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Likely a mediation between two users is required here, i doubt that this wold resolve any problem. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the de-adminship of A.Savin, as I don't think he lost the trust of the community, and as Steinsplitter said, it wouldn't resolve the problem between A.Savin and Kalbbes. However, I don't mind having a de-RFA as a re-assessment. I think it would be best for A.Savin to voluntarily open himself up for reconfirmation, just like what Fastily did, considering the many controversies in AN/U A.Savin got involved in. I would support his reconfirmation if he does so. panda kekok 9 03:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Removing the administrator status is not a punishment but well a way to avoid future potential conflicts, and to avoid additional pressure for A.Savin who don't show that he is able to change is behavior. Those who think it is A.Savin and me are wrong. And all those who encourage him not to question himself, does not serve him or the community. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shooting with a canon to a mosquito. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker ^{Overleg • CA} 10:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Not the first time. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cookieman1.1.1 is making funny statements

...Cookieman1.1.1 is stating that the blazon filed with the INSTITUTO DE CULTURA PUERTORRIQUENA is unreliable. How can that be so? I am concerned that he is not sensitive to the importance of respecting that the correct versions of a town's symbol are displayed on wikipedia articles. He is replacing my images with his.

However, I am creating coat of arms based on what I read filed with the INSTITUTO DE CULTURA PUERTORRIQUENA

This is the coat of arms that was filed, officially. So he does not speak Spanish and can not interpret the blazon on file.

Cookieman1.1.1 is also uploading copyright items. Such as File:Coat of arms of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico.svg

Exact is found on the town's website and marked copyright. http://www.guaynabocity.gov.pr/post/guaynabos-city-hall/

I don't place a copyright notice delete on his page because if / when an editor places a notice on his user page, he quickly blanks it out.

--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Eloquent Peasant: I notified him for you. Please do that yourself next time. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 22:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Heraldry teacher for 2 years here. The blazon filed by most American authorities are incorrect and don't represent an actual blazon. The same one that the Instituto De Cultura Puertoriquena made follows the same principle. While I can agree with the belt should be cut off at the end; majority of the blazons like Cookieman has stated are just descriptions. If an Puerto Rican herald could follow up with the full Spanish blazon of Arecibo, we could easily resolve this. If not at the least; a member of government there. On the copyright note; all coat of arms on Wikipedia are independent of copyright restrictions through the usage of the Insignia template; and they are also work derivative of another person; not just a recreation of the one on the site. If we are to use the original one just from the site; we could just get around this with the non-free template as well to showcase the coat of arms (as a .png preferrably). I am happy to answer any more questions you have. Niko3818 (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Niko3818: Hi, and welcome. Please note that any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744) or jaggy when scaled up, so you may want to upload an svg or jpg version, instead. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 23:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howday, I believe there is some confusion on The Eloquent Peasant's side on how this stuff works... You see, I do admit that I was incorrect listing Instituto De Cultura Puertoriquena as unreliable, however the semi-blason (I call it this because it isn't a proper heraldic emblazonment) states nowhere that the belt has to be in a certain attitude or postion... therefore being the reason i continuously stated "Not blazon specific". I have changed the belt to prevent the dispute from continuing. On the coat of arms of Guaynabo and you marking it as copyvio, it isn't based off the one used on any government website. The thing you are confusing it with is the Municpalities seal which features the coat of arms inside of it. As we both know, all Puerto Rican coats of arms are in public domain as they all have expired and non-renewed copyrights (the WikiProject actually had a discussion on this and The Eloquent Peasant was the one who contacted the PR.gov on the matter). I'd also like to thank Niko3818 for pointing this out the insignia part also. As for me blanking out my DR's is simply because: a. Im fine and agree with the deletion. b. the deletion request was closed.

I would also like to add that I am replacing files in good faith, as The Eloquent Peasant's svg versions of some arms where not exactly accurate to put it kindly. A good example is File:Escudo de Aguada, Puerto Rico.svg which i superseded with File:Coat of arms of Aguada, Puerto Rico.svg.

I would like to ask the user to please next time respond to notifications relating to the discussion of files instead of ignoring and taking something small to administation. I am a very reasonable person and willing to work with anyone :) --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cookieman1.1.1: how long have you and I been working on this? If you were reasonable, I would not have to "come here". The PR Coats of Arms are not all in the public domain as many were created / designed in the 70s and that issue of whether it is or not in the public domain has never been settled even with my contacting the government of P.R.. Also, don't talk to me as if I'm your friend on file discussions. I am not your friend and you are clearly not my friend. You have never worked well with me or the Puerto Rico project. You insist on adding images / coat of arms regardless of the feedback the project members provide to you. When I just discussed this image, that there was a problem with your version on the coat of arms- you dismissed me and said the one filed with the Cultural Institute of P.R. is unreliable. How is that possible. That's the one filed by the artist with the PR government. The hell? On your coat of arms if you indicate non - blazon specific then don't insist on putting it on the article, because if it's not blazon specific it is your interpretation of the symbol which may not be the best representation of that town's symbol. Discuss with the Puerto Rico project. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done user admitted " I was incorrect listing Instituto De Cultura Puertoriquena as unreliable" and changed their disrespectful version of a country's / towns symbols. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Eloquent Peasant: Decorum please, we aren't friends. Did I even mention that? No relationship isn't a reason to be disrespectful. However we are people looking to do the same thing which is why I am speaking to and of you in a friendly manner. This isn't the first time you've came at me in an unfriendly and unwelcomed manner. The "blazon" you provided doesn't prove that my file version is inferior, again not blazon specific. The issue isnt if I was incorrect on if something was reliable, its if that source actually supports anything you are saying to me. It's very sad, especially over something you should have talked over. You genuinely have made me contemplate leaving wikipedia and wikicommons all together. I've spoken with plenty of other users on this and majority have told me to just report you, however I am reasonable and if I wasn't I would have reported you after the "have a nice life sweetheart" incident back in 2020.

Maybe I was too friendly :/ --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's another issue with this editor related to uploading images that are protected under copyright. To wit, Cookieman has uploaded the flag and seal of the City of Taylor, Michigan, now twice. They were deleted last month as copyright violations. Originally, Cookieman claimed a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license for these images, if I'm remembering correctly. This time around, the user had claimed that license on the seal, again implying he is the creator of the design involved. For the other graphic, he claimed that the image was in the public domain based on age considerations. Funnily enough, the City was only incorporated in 1968, meaning its flag could not have been created between 1926 and 1963. I believe some coaching in copyright basics are in order before this user uploads more questionable graphics. Imzadi 1979 → 22:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to see a correct count of the number of copyright images Cookieman1.1.1 has uploaded and had deleted by the community because he's blanked out his Commons discussion page, each time. But these are some of the images that have been deleted due to copyright issues or missing source:

Deleted for Copyright violation
File:Flag of Traverse City, Michigan.svg
File:Seal of Traverse City, Michigan.svg
File:Seal of Travese City, Michigan.svg
File:Flag of Mackinaw City, Michigan, USA.svg
File:Flag of Dearborn, Michigan.svg
File:Flag of Canton, Michigan.svg
File:Flag of Lansing, Michigan.svg
File:Logo of the Taylor, Michigan.svg
File:Flag of Brownstown, Michigan.svg
File:Seal of Brownstown, Michigan.svg
File:Flag of Pass Christian, Mississippi.svg

and currently many of his other images are marked for deletion due to copyright. He added the Public Domain license expired license for the File:Coat of arms of Arecibo, Puerto Rico.svg that he created, however, this coat of arms is not in the PD as it was adopted in 1968. He should read and reread the copyright page and terms of use page. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do I see a pattern here? There's another issue with this editor (Cookieman) in that he uploaded a copy of a page that had previously been deleted by an Admin, here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cookieman1.1.1&oldid=1003581139). The second upload has been requested by a 3rd party to be speedily deleted. Granted, this was in a sister project, but it begs the question, "Is this editor performing per Wikimedia policies or per his own personal interests as opposed to community interests?" Mercy11 (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this. There are just no words for this. According to user - So the same image (mine should be deleted for copyvio but his (same image just .svg) should not by some .. I don't know... by some play on words? I have no idea. Can someone please tell me what's going on?

And whatever I do, he can do better. hahaha Ex. 1

-->

and Ex. 2

-->

If he only knew, I am just an old grandma. I guess now you know. I'm just a very old grandma. Sitting in my rocking chair making inferior coat of arms shields for Puerto Rico based on Spanish text, that I tend to understand.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not take better quality files as me trying to "one up you" per se, if I was then I would have replaced all of your files and there is no reason for that. The majority of your Puerto Rican coats of arms are perfectly fine and I thank you for that. However coats of arms like Aguada is an asset bash and its quality is very low for an svg, especially since it uses png's converted into svg's. I call it inferior because of a few reasons I've pointed out on the files discussion page. I do appreciate that you have fixed the tinctures from what it looks. We should use Heralder/Sodacan type assets when we make coats of arms and follow the blazon as it is high quality and avoids possible copyright issues. With the arms of Guaynabo I've changed the arms and updated it with one that follows its blazon and not a design. Therefore i marked the png version of my own as its based off the website. Finally with the Arecibo coat of arms it looks very similar to the ones used by the municpality which could be and issue. You've also used the words "templates" when describing the belt which i question what you mean by that and if you are looking at images and not blazons. If you would get back to me when I pinged you and respond to questions that would honestly help next time. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are replacing my files with yours,but not because yours are better but because you just want to. As you know you have been invited to the PR Project Symbols Project and that is where we work together. Example of how you replace my files with yours: Ex. # 3

==>

That's what you have been doing. Note: The PR Symbols Project page - Remember that place?

Is this really a file

you think we want on the Trujillo Alto wikipedia articles? I don't think so, but of course that is what is there now because no one here is going to beg you to fix files that you put on the Puerto Rico municipality pages and no one here is going to edit war with you. Not everyone shares your aesthetics and do continue discussions on these specifics on the Puerto Rico Symbols Project page. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it rude of you to assume such, If you look at your files i have stated multiple times the blatant issues they have. I also find it rude that you ask if I remember the project, hell I do and the last few days I've added to the discussion if you would look and give feedback like i have been asking for the last few days instead of ignoring it. Also there isn't really any point of a standards page if you are going to upload files without reaching a consensus instead of uploading and putting check marks without agreement. Would you like to talk about more issues? This isn't on the matters of aesthetics, its on quality. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you added / updated the

, with the new light green stuff on the mountain, what specific blazon are you referring to, since you don't understand Spanish? We do give you comments, offer encouragement, and reach consensus on the PR Symbols project page because the participant's on that wiki project care about having quality images on the wikipedia articles.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should remove the Trujillo Alto stuff on the mountain. It looks really awful. I am a lady - a lady who's been around awhile so please be a gentleman... --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cookieman1.1.1: see prior comment. If you don't update this file, I'll create my own and add it to the Trujillo articles. Instead of fixing the image you made it worst and I feel intimidated with this action of yours. The action I am referring to is this. You took a file Trujillo Coat of Arms which is used on multiple files and you made something quite strange. I have / we have tried for many months, since you joined Wikipedia to work with you but this action of yours is really, first immature, secondly not good. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Eloquent Peasant: Why are you bringing up design when we literally have a whole page on the wikiproject to discuss it? I replaced it because the orignal file i made was based off the design of the municipal coat of arms from a PDF and this version is based of the blazon to aviod future copyvio issues. I may not be fluent in Spanish but I can comprehend basic Spanish and whenever I need a translation for a blazon I know many Spanish speaking Heralds who help, I feel as if you take me for a imbecile. It would be absolutely hypocritical to replace the file with your own after saying you support "consensus" on symbols for Puerto Rico. I'll bring it up on PR symbols if its such a concern with yourself. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is what I thought you were doing with your first coat of arms of Yauco back around September 2020, where you put 14 snakes instead of the correct 7 snakes. But now I understand that you just don't understand the Spanish descriptions for the coat of arms.

It has to do with you not having command of the Spanish language. But I didn't know that the first time I started an Admin problems with user.

i.e. the Yauco municipio blazon states "7 snakes: 4 on the left and 3 on the right" but you have 14 snakes. BTW, Your rrecent Yauco COA looks good (not copyvio) but still has 14 snakes when it should only have 7.

i.e. the Arecibo municipio crown uses a Taino crown not the crown you have on your file...

Given, I should not have yelled out you here last week and that was rude re: Trujillo Alto. What I meant when I yelled- what I should have said "is that what you think we what for Trujillo Alto?" I should have said that the Trujillo Alto COA looks to be a copyvio of what is on the municipio page.. but not only yours, the other two versions by other users as well.

So you responded by updating the flag with what I consider to be vandalism.

I do think, as we have done in the last few days with your rendition of the Juncos coa, you should continue to work with us. You should continue to help us with the PR Symbols project. Please don't be tempted to vandalize. I apologize for snapping. I'm not accusing you of vandalism but given that I am old woman (I have seen a lot of things), what I see on your subsequent action to my yelling with Trujillo Alto COA is vandalism. I promise I'll assume good faith, now that I understand the issue (Spanish language limitations). I'll keep providing the blazons for your creations as well, if you like. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cookieman1.1.1: You constantly copy others work and call it your own, mine and others. You copied someone's work and called it your own, here:

You say you're here to teach me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Puerto_Rico/Standards/Symbols&diff=prev&oldid=1006660587 or how you put it "to User:Cookieman1.1.1/Heraldicfactsandlogic|destroy others with farts and logic about heraldry" First try learning about copyright and attribution.

We're obviously not here with the same spirit so do stay away from me and do not copy my images and call them your own.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about that I responded by updating the flag? I haven't touched that file in months. Also as for the user box, I feel as if you are taking that too personally, especially calling it "farts and logic" when it is meant to be an inside joke between myself and a few others from WikiProject:Micronations. Also it is a bit contradictory to say you wish for me to continue helping and that you will help then to say to me to stay away from yourself; very interesting rhetoric you have. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Massimo marino

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No uploads after last warning. Jianhui67^T★C 23:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Πατριάρχης Δημήτριος.jpg

Good day. This file was created based on another Wikimedia file. In the photo editor, I likened the features of Patriarch Bartholomew, depicted in the original, to the features of Patriarch Demetrius. No other file is used here. I am neither the author nor the author of the original file, so I cannot respond to the template. What do you advise as an administrator? It use this File: Varfholomey (2019-01-05) 25 (cropped).jpg The close situation with this file Demetrios I of Constantinople.jpg, that was uploaded to the Wikimedia by me — Preceding unsigned comment added by RC-1841 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnson.Xia

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Somehow I have a feeling, that Xia understood the problem. I assume good faith and do not block Xia now. Taivo (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuraily Lic: You told me 14:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC) in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 88#User:ゆかち that you understood the need to notify a user on their user talk page when you report them here. Yet, you are still neglecting to do so. Why? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not neglect to do so. But, sometimes I forget to do it. If you see the above cases of User:Kmkoji and User:山口ケージ, you'll understand that I notified them. Thanks for the advice, Jeff G.. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NO BLOCK:

Block must be preventive, not punitive. In my opinion DestinationFearFan got the problem, so at moment block is not needed. But next uploaded copyvio will change the situation. Taivo (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:DestinationFearFan

DestinationFearFan has uploaded a number of images of a real estate project in Texas called The Independent. If you look closely at the top of File:The Independent 001.jpg, it becomes obvious that this is a photo of a computer screen. Similar artifacts appear in the other images in the series. Another upload by the same user (File:GreenWheel EV's Production Plant in EV Valley.jpg) also appears to be a photo of a computer screen. Although the user claims it is their own work, the original comes from here. File:Original Tokyo Toy Show Logo.jpg is also a photo of a screen and clearly not the users own work as claimed. The series of images of Beipanjiang Bridge are similarly suspect. I think the sensible course of action would be to delete all images uploaded by this user. They have a history of uploading copyright violations. I don't know why they have not been indef blocked before now. Mo Billings (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mo Billings: I notified him of this section for you. Please do that yourself next time. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mo Billings Ok, SOME of the pictures I have put are of a screen. The reason I did this is because I saw this happening on other users pages's, so I assumed that it was alright to do (clearly it wasn't, as of this message). However, most of mine have been taken by me and not of a screen. Please do not block me. I really want to help Wikimedia/Wikipedia with good photos, and I won't upload any more images of screens. Again, please give me 1 more chance, but please don't delete ALL of my uploads. I will provide a list below of the pictures that are from a screen.

The rest of the images I uploaded I ACTUALLY TOOK IN PERSON. Again, please do not ban me, but you can delete those files. DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to me. If it was, you'd have been indef blocked already. Your talk page is full of warnings about copyright violations, including a final warning which you seem to have ignored. You have claimed copyrighted images as your own work when you knew they were not. Why would anyone believe your claims now? Mo Billings (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The warnings on my talk page was for 2 files.DestinationFearFan (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Mo Billings (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I deleted the mentioned files. DestinationFearFan, please consider this a warning. Taivo (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me 1 more chance. I won't upload any more pictures of screens, only my work. DestinationFearFan (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DestinationFearFan: Can you take another look through your uploads and make sure that you have identified all of the images which are not your own work? Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will take a look. DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure this is the last of them:

DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DestinationFearFan: "Pretty sure" is not good enough when dealing with copyright violations. Please make absolutely sure. Mo Billings (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last ones are File:Levdeo i5.jpg, File:Aoxin AEV1.jpg, File:Aoxin A1XD.webp, and File:Levdeo i3.jpg. The rest I took. DestinationFearFan (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DestinationFearFan: It is extremely important that you only upload images you have taken yourself, or in some circumstances, images that you can verify are already freely licensed. If you need any assistance with this, feel free to stop by my talk page or at the Village Pump. GMG ^talk 17:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GreenMeansGo I now understand the importance of copyrights and copyright violations. Thank you for the help offer. DestinationFearFan (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DestinationFearFan: You lied when you uploaded images here and claimed them as your own work. You lied in this discussion when you claimed you were only warned about two files. And when I gave you a chance to come clean, you lied again by claiming that all of your remaining files are your own uploads. File:Aoxin AEV1.jpg is not your work. File:Levdeo i3.jpg is not your work. All of your uploads should be deleted since your claims of authorship are simply not trustworthy. Taivo You gave the user another chance. Is it time to block them yet? Mo Billings (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about uploading those images. And how is that lying??? I never said I took them. And I'm pretty sure the two Aoxin and Levdeo images were already deleted.DestinationFearFan (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You literally said "the rest I took". Mo Billings (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because I listed the ones that are images of a screen. DestinationFearFan (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mo, I'm just wondering. You seem to really want me blocked. Have I done something to you? Or do you have anything against me? DestinationFearFan (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing personal. Any user who continues to upload copyright violations will get blocked. Mo Billings (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But please don't follow me around on Wikipedia like you did with my Sandbox. DestinationFearFan (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also pretty sure that this discussion is over, because I have already read the verdict up above. DestinationFearFan (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo, GreenMeansGo, and Elcobbola: Do any of you care to deal with this situation? Mo Billings (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'll delete the last mentioned files. Taivo (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo: Thank you, but I was talking about the user, not the files. After several warnings for uploaded copyright violations, including a final warning from Elcobbola), the user continued to upload copyright violations. When discussed here, they identified some of those copyright violations. When asked twice to ensure that there were no others, they again gave a false accounting of which images were their own work. Twice. When I gave two more examples, they said they "forgot" about those ones. Why should anyone have any confidence that the user's remaining uploads are their own work? Mo Billings (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Beeb28

User: Beeb28 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Copyvios and promotion of self, own music, and own record company.

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 07:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No deleted edits or copyvios after your warning on 11th of February at 10:26. All uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo: Did you see this gem? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 20:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I deleted the userpage. Taivo (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boxingfan1995

Boxingfan1995 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I'm not that familiar to commons but gathered this was the place for this. The user has continued to upload copyvios after their final warning. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No edits since October, block is not practical. I nominated some copyvios for deletion. Taivo (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikico123

Resolved

Wikico123 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 1 week.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Darwin. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Avilaroman

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

Copyvio after warnings. This user has been blocked twice before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Only one copyvio, so I do not block Avilaroman indefinitely, but only for 6 months. Taivo (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:إسماعيل الحلونجي

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Due to big number of copyvios and 0% of correct uploads I blocked the user for a year. Taivo (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Medo292009

Medo292009 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warnings. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 4nn1l2. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius of WWCC

User: Cassius of WWCC (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning for doing so. All uploads have been copyvios.

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done GMG ^talk 15:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GMG: Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User deleting link between the Thin Blue Line flag and the Blue Lives Matter movement

Users involved (on Commons):

badzil (talk · contribs) (requestor)
The IPA (talk · contribs)

The description of File:Thin Blue Line Flag (United States).svg was modified on 2 occasions in the past week to replace the sentence

Flag commonly associated with Blue Lives Matter. The flag is a version of the American flag in white, black, and blue.

with

The blue line flag is a simultude of the American flag in white, black, and blue.

At the same time the user is also rewriting history in the associated Wikipedia article: Blue Lives Matter. They attempted to establish a consensus back in May 2020 without success and are now pushing their point-of-view without consensus. I've attempted to discuss with the user via diff messages but this is without success so far. Badzil (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I blocked the IPA for a year from editing the file. IPA can still edit everything else. Taivo (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alorwa

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 4nn1l2. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yusuf Sa'adu

Yusuf Sa'adu (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jianhui67^T★C 23:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jianhui67. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brenno da Grécia e Dinamarca

Brenno da Grécia e Dinamarca (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Rubin16 as previous decliner. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 01:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

blocked rubin16 (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, rubin16. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:EricNeedles3

EricNeedles3 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 4nn1l2. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fadewwiki

Commons:License laundering? This user found an image on other site, uploaded it to Flickr, and then uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. I suspect so.

File (URL) - Uploaded date (time), Order: Wikimedia Commons, Flickr, other site

Case-1

File:Laksam_health_professionals_participating_in_a_funeral_of_a_COVID-19_deceased_patient.jpg - 2021-02-12 10:07:37

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192081627@N03/50934544583/ - 2021-02-12

https://www.facebook.com/noman390/photos/pcb.1155473521479959/1155473351479976/ - 2020-05-18

Case-2

File:Purba_Laksam_from_Skyview.jpg - 2021-02-12 08:45:41

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192081627@N03/50935209422/ - 2021-02-12

https://www.facebook.com/NfgcLaksam/photos/pcb.2917942231622515/2917939951622743/ - 2020-05-01

Case-3

File:Laksam_Jagannath_Temple_(Jaghannath_Mandir).jpg - 2021-02-10 08:52:59

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192081627@N03/50928580256/ - 2021-02-10

https://bengali.news18.com/photogallery/coronavirus-latest-news/puri-jagannath-temple-shuts-down-in-corona-panic-sr-424676.html - 2020-03-19

--Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Yuraily Lic, I appreciate your efforts to eradicate copyright violation from Wikimedia, can I know what are the reasons for your suspicion? Unless you have some exact proof or facts, I don't think it's a good idea to rouse suspicion on someone based only on your conjecture. I found those pictures on Flickr, and I uploaded them to Wikimedia. Since they are freely licensed, anyone could use these pictures, hence you provided some website links, they might also get the pics from flicker and uploaded them on their websites. If you have any proof or can show some proper reasons why these pics should be removed/my account should be placed under some restriction or action, I'd like to know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadewwiki (talk • contribs) 07:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are more. They were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons on the same day they were uploaded to Flickr. They were from the same Flickr account.

Case-4

File:Laksam_Al_Amin_High_School.jpg - 2021-02-10 12:22:01

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192081627@N03/50929030846/ - 2021-02-10

https://www.facebook.com/798884383499533/photos/3489817324406212/ - 2020-11-18

Case-5

File:Students_of_Al_Amin_Institute_pays_tribute_to_language_martyrs.jpg -2021-02-10 12:22:01

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192081627@N03/50929152517/ - 2021-02-10

https://www.facebook.com/AAIOfficial/photos/a.1171992169522084/2112760288778596/ - 2019-02-20

--Yuraily Lic (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need more examples?

Case-6

File:Laksam_government_pilot_high_school.jpg - 2021-02-15 09:05:03

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192081627@N03/50944927548/ - 2021-02-15

https://www.facebook.com/Laksam.pilot/photos/a.1608420476125420/1608428962791238/ - 2016-09-19

Case-7

File:Laksam_Pilot_Government_High_School_Logo.jpg - 2021-02-15 17:21:55

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192081627@N03/50947029862/ - 2021-02-15

https://www.facebook.com/Laksam.pilot/photos/a.1608420659458735/1608420662792068/ - 2016-09-19

Case-8

File:Student_Assembly_at_Laksam_Al_Amin_Institute.jpg - 2021-02-11 12:17:49‎

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192081627@N03/50932470607/ - 2021-02-11

https://www.facebook.com/107342027691229/photos/pcb.160927478999350/160926555666109/ -2020-10-21

--Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The judgment of the relationship between this Flickr user and User:Fadewwiki, I will leave it to the admins. But, as you can see, this Flickr user has uploaded others' photos. This is obvious. I think that all photos transferred from this Flickr user should be deleted. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me say one more thing.

The date of the oldest uploaded by the Flickr user - 9 February 2021

The date of User:Fadewwiki's account was created - 9 February 2021

After this, the Flickr user's album and User:Fadewwiki's uploads are going together.

192081627@N03's album

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192081627@N03/albums/72157718229031357

User:Fadewwiki's uploads

Special:ListFiles/Fadewwiki

--Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still not enough?

User:Fadewwiki's first upload, it's the Al Amin Institute's logo. It shows that Fadewwiki has a strong interest in the institution.

The Flickr user, who coincidentally started on the same day, uploaded photos related to the Al Amin Institute, too. (under a bogus free-use license)

Fadewwiki and the Flickr user were active on the same day, and inactive on the same day.

--Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning sent. Could you please tag the files? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann and Yuraily Lic: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "192081627@N03". — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 21:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Yann and Jeff G..

Pinging @Fadewwiki, Do you have any opinions? --Yuraily Lic (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gérald Garitan (talk · contribs)

Please pay attention to this user. When I browse the files uploaded by him, I otice he had uploaded some historical photos as Own work or Template:Cc-by-sa4.0. This situation has been going on for a long time. Maybe we should ban him? (｀・ω・´) (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Obviously some language issue here. This user doesn't seem to speak English. I will look and check. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ackadloor and User:Mohammed Naseeruddin GHMC

The users are engaged in uploading images from Facebook and involved in sockpuppetry. See w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mohammed Naseeruddin GHMC. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amkgp: Please see m:srg#Global lock for Asimrasool1998. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 23:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atdheu Fragmentar (talk · contribs)

Remove {{Copyvio}} multiple times without explaining the reason. (｀・ω・´) (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the identity to be confirmed with a message to COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Damian Alexander Macay Pinacay

Damian Alexander Macay Pinacay (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 4nn1l2. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikrad2020

User: Nikrad2020 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Sizpay-Logo-JPG-Way2pay-98-04-11.jpg after final warning for doing so.

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I can see 2 copyvios after warning, so I block Nikrad only for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Eloquent Peasant

User The Eloquent Peasant (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continuously ignoring guidelines agreed by Wikiproject:Puerto Rico to reach consensus when using and replacing files relating to Puerto Rico. User has constantly contradicted themselves in statements relating to consensus yet have failed to do so. An example of a file replaced without reasoning other then personal preference is this file which was replaced on wikipedia and wikidata without consensus by this file. With the attitude of the user this can be considred as disruptive editing, especially after claiming that "If you don't update this file, I'll create my own and add it to the Trujillo articles" which you can ctrl-f and find on this specific noticeboard. It seems the user is appealing to ones self interest then others as a group. Here is the page for consensus discussion which was agreed upon we would all have to agree to use files here. The user clearly has done this with almost all files added and replaced after the agreement. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bull-Doser

User: Bull-Doser (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: This is a followup to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 54#User:Bull-Doser. I warned the user to stop multiple-voting in this edit 18:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC), but they have continued[9][10][11][12].[reply]

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to talk to (or about) Myloufa. It's not quite as bad as what happened last October. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine question Bull-Doser - Why are you !voting multiple times ?, The last diff really does take the biscuit and I'm intrigued as to why you do it ?, It can't be simple forgetfulness surely ?, FWIW I double-!voted at an AFD (EN) once and when it was pointed to me I immediately struck it .... but I'm perplexed as to how you !vote 3 times in one DR...... –Davey2010^Talk 02:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure about it. Voting multiple times ain't harassment. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never said it was but you know it's not allowed so why do it?, You've been editing here non stop since 2006 so you must of ventured to DR prior to 2018 (your first DR) and you must of known multiple-!voting wasn't allowed or wasn't a thing?. –Davey2010^Talk 02:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mahaveer Indra

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

Long term uploader of images that are subject to copyright violations. Reapetedly uploading images that are not CC BY-SA 4.0 eligible. Has been warned several times before but still engaged in uploading images that are not free. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I blocked the user for a week and deleted some copyvios. Taivo (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ymblanter

Violation of renaming policy [13]. Threatening by blocking after showing that the renaming was illegal because the used name is acceptable for Belarusian language. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that the user did not care to notify me about this thread). Indeed, w:be-tarask:Русіфікацыя Беларусі says Русіфікацыя (w:en:Russification) is the same as маскаліза́цыя (moskalization, from w:en:Moskal, which is an offensive ethnic slur). However, be-tarask is a project usurped by a group of ultra-nationalists, who are in particular notorious for tryiong to push the belarusian Latin alphabeth everywhere in Wikiverse. The Belarusian Wikipedia, which is healthy project, contains this article as well, w:be:Русіфікацыя Беларусі, but does not mention any moskalization. May I please also note that this element in the name of the file is completely unneeded, and was only added to make the title sound offensive. If I saw this on the English Wikipedia, where I am administrator, this would likely result, after a discussion, in a site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 09:39, 20 February 2021 edit Kazimier Lachnovič (talk \| contribs) Autopatrollers 207,483 edits →User talk:Ymblanter ← Older edit		Revision as of 09:49, 20 February 2021 edit undo Ymblanter (talk \| contribs) Interface administrators, Administrators 169,232 edits →User:Ymblanter Newer edit →
Line 670:		Line 670:

	Violation of renaming policy [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%96%D1%84%D1%96%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%86%D1%8B%D1%8F._%D0%9C%D1%96%D1%80._%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8C%D1%86%D1%91%D0%BB_%D0%A1%D1%8C%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D1%96%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%8F.jpg&diff=534282938&oldid=534282860]. [[User talk:Ymblanter\|Threatening by blocking]] after showing that the renaming was illegal because the used name is acceptable for Belarusian language. --[[User:Kazimier Lachnovič\|Kazimier Lachnovič]] ([[User talk:Kazimier Lachnovič\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)		Violation of renaming policy [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%96%D1%84%D1%96%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%86%D1%8B%D1%8F._%D0%9C%D1%96%D1%80._%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8C%D1%86%D1%91%D0%BB_%D0%A1%D1%8C%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D1%96%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%8F.jpg&diff=534282938&oldid=534282860]. [[User talk:Ymblanter\|Threatening by blocking]] after showing that the renaming was illegal because the used name is acceptable for Belarusian language. --[[User:Kazimier Lachnovič\|Kazimier Lachnovič]] ([[User talk:Kazimier Lachnovič\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
			: (Note that the user did not care to notify me about this thread). Indeed, [[:w:be-tarask:Русіфікацыя Беларусі]] says Русіфікацыя ([[:w:en:Russification]]) is the same as маскаліза́цыя (moskalization, from [[:w:en:Moskal]], which is an offensive ethnic slur). However, be-tarask is a project usurped by a group of ultra-nationalists, who are in particular notorious for tryiong to push the belarusian Latin alphabeth everywhere in Wikiverse. The Belarusian Wikipedia, which is healthy project, contains this article as well, [[:w:be:Русіфікацыя Беларусі]], but does not mention any moskalization. May I please also note that this element in the name of the file is completely unneeded, and was only added to make the title sound offensive. If I saw this on the English Wikipedia, where I am administrator, this would likely result, after a discussion, in a site ban.--[[User:Ymblanter\|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)