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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:54, 24 December 2016

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
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	123, 122, 121, 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	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	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

^{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.
It is usually appropriate to 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.

about User:Benzoyl

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

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

User:Benzoyl uploads copyright violation files and out of scope files many times. Files uploaded by him/her have been frequently deleted. (Please see many deletion records in User talk:Benzoyl.) He/She seems not to understand copyright and aim of Wikimedia Commons. I think that warning by administrator is necessary to him/her.

In addition, he/she is an indefinitely blocked user in ja.wikipedia. (Please see ja:利用者:Benzoyl. ) --Ralth Galth (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Info Investigated also in AN/B; no reason for block found. Ankry (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I list up. These are files uploaded by Benzoil and deleted due to copyright violation (including COM:DW, COM:FOP#Japan, COM:PACKAGING) .

File:Minimal underwear for men designed by porn actor Taka Kato.jpg
File:Christian Riese Lassen advertising posters in the Japanese train.jpg
File:Tokyo Pro Baseball on Television in 1967.jpg
File:Burger King's KURO-NINJA black buns colored by Bamboo Charcoal in 2013.jpg
File:Attendance Criterion of Doze.jpg
File:TV Program AD Poster at Shinjuku Station Square.jpg
File:A small present soshina by Video Research in 2007.jpg
File:LUMINE EST in 25 March 2014.jpg
File:Cool TA Q BIN (8503026296).jpg
File:「注意！街灯周辺ではゆりかもめのフンにご注意ください。」(佃大橋) (3956552421).jpg
File:ごはんですよ!入り納豆 (410382292).jpg
File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2006 (2243895217).jpg
File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2008.jpg
File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2006 (2243895217).jpg
File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2008.jpg
File:FRESHNESS BURGER's Liberation Wrapper printed with female's ochobo mouth.jpg
File:The Perfect Vending Machine in 2006.jpg
File:カップ麺の棚 (6194953019).jpg
File:献花台 (5071132931).jpg
File:下痢止め (1205969566).jpg
File:Takarakuji Asakusa 2006 (2243959669).jpg
File:MORINAGA ICE CREAM (2244540884).jpg

(from User talk:Benzoyl/log1)

These are not all of them. I think that warning by administrator is necessary to him/her.--Ralth Galth (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Comment Maybe User:Benzoyl can not distinguish between important and trivial.

He/she constantly creates useless categories. (e.g. Category:Black, gold, orange, white)

Even if other users point out to him/her, he/she does not reply seriously. (e.g. File talk:23.3.20 ＮＥＡＡ：給食支援（仙台市七郷小）① 東日本大震災における災害派遣活動 48.jpg)--禁樹なずな (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Comment See "Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Black, gold, orange, white" --Benzoyl (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that User:Benzoyl has uploaded the copyrighted works intentionally. I'd like everyone to read

--Ralth Galth (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Comment Commons:De minimis#An example, File:GT2 - Flickr - CarSpotter.jpg - Someone add The Dark Knight. What about? --Benzoyl (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

2. ref Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Benzoyl - posters
3. ref Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Benzoyl - advertisements

Comment User:Benzoyl doesn't intend to violate copyrights.

However, as soon as he finds something astound, he compulsively upload or categorise it, and so, his deeds tend to confuse other users.--禁樹なずな (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

To 禁樹なずな. Thank you for your comment. If so, I think Benzoyl should not join the Wikimedia Commons. Participation by people who don't understand what is the main subject of the photos, it brings confusion to the Wikimedia Commons. --Ralth Galth (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Image from Internet ?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

File:Agrarhandelsbetrieb.png I think taht image is taken from internet. I am not sure. what can i do ? --Blonder1984 (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've done a Google reverse image search, and can't find any other instances of the image online. I think you should probably ask the uploader for some further information, and if you're not satisfied with the response, consider opening a Deletion Review. Nick (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Copyvios from User:Gurbar Akaal

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

All images uploaded (earlier this year) by Gurbar Akaal (talk · contribs) appear to be copyvios with false claims of either "own work"/cc-by-sa or "PD-India". Please mass-delete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Comment - While I disagree that they are own work, I do want to agree that majority of the images are PD work. Wikicology (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Which ones? Most of the ones I've seen are paintings of undisclosed authorship, evidently modern (20th century). They all seem much too young to assume 60 years p.m.a. (and in any case, it would be up to the uploader to prove that). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
  - So, is anything going to happen here? Do I really have to nominate all of these files for deletion separately? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Illegitimate Barrister

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Illegitimate Barrister (talk · contribs)

Illegitimate Barrister repeatedly has uploaded images that have been eventually deleted. He did not participate in Commons:Deletion requests/File:'You Bet Your Life' title card (1955-1960).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sammy Lee in 'You Bet Your Life', 1956.png. He has been notified about this, but he constantly either removes or archives the notifications. Also, when tried to delete the local en wiki copy, I told him that I would nominate the Commons one for deletion. Then he swore me off. If two images are not enough, one of the images is discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Infinite (Eminem album), though not yet closed. Hedwig in Washington can explain the user's conduct on one matter. If that is also not enough, look at all the logs at his user talk page. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

George Ho, What is the problem here? I am struggling to see why you dragged this user here. They swore me off on the English Wikipedia, so they should be blocked on Commons? No! They ignored the DR I initiated, they should be blocked, Oh... yes! They erase the DR notification on their talk page, so they should be blocked? George, it is not compulsory for users to participate in every discussion and policy allow users to remove DR notification from their user talk page, this does not magically mean they are rude or hate you. If you think they have uploaded copyvios, of course you are welcomed to tag them for deletion and warn them, if they continue to repeat the same behavior, you can draw the attention of any administrator to it. This noticeboard is for discussing serious problems. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for not being clear, Wikicology. The user keeps uploading files that have copyright issues, and he puts notifications into User talk:Illegitimate Barrister/Archive 1 (latest version. Here are his archiving activities: [1], [2][3][4][5]. I hate to admit that he does some good contributions, like File:Seal of Holmes Beach, Florida.png. However, the notifications keep coming. --George Ho (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any problems here. The user seems to upload images in good faith. Copyright is tricky (and often ridiculous). Archiving your talk page is completely fine. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

My apologies to Illegitimate Barrister for not showing good faith to him. Copyright has become annoying anymore. I don't know... maybe he can use COM:VPCOPY? --George Ho (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wait... I found one proof that he also said that in Commons before archiving the notifications without the swearing. --George Ho (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Found another of his swearing (archived). More likely his swearing represents his disregard for warnings. --George Ho (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done That was indeed absolutely unacceptable. User warned. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Not just user talk page, here is another page. I don't know whether swearing is okay, but your thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Seems that he accepted the warning and then archived it. --George Ho (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

While he may have rights to archive, look at those samples. He sometimes, occasionally, or often archives messages at the instant of receiving them. --George Ho (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I regularly remove DR notifications on my talk page and do not archive them. If a user manually removes a DR notification instead of just hitting the "undo" button, I think that is a fairly good indication they have seen it and are aware of the DR in process. Whether they chose to participate is their own prerogative. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Picture refused

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Hello, I want to upload this picture of a house. I made it myself, but it is refused. I want to upload it to Astraat 19 and to Huize Noordeinde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standorhoutmees (talk • contribs) 14:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand. You have no deleted contributions and your only upload (a dog) is OK. Did you get some error message when trying to upload a photo about house? Which one? (Bytheway, photographing of houses is really problematic in some countries.) Taivo (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Look at the filter log. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Probably small size jpeg. Indicates the file has probably been lifted from a website. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 07:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

898×1600. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Steinsplitter: Wo klemmt die Datei? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 19:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Blocked by the filter who is blocking copyvios from x-wiki upload feature. This is a false positive, but that is unavoidable. The file can be uploaded via Special:UploadWizard. The user asked at Commons:Help_desk#Picture refused as well. The filter is showing a warning, so it should be possible to upload the file following a few steps whiteout asking. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Inappropriate behavior of Jcb

Latest comment: 8 years ago20 comments9 people in discussion

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I was advised to stop wasting everybody's time, therefore I am going to close this discussion just summarizing the main points. It is ok, and it is even the best practice to delete files out of process. It does not matter what Jcb has done in the past, the only thing which matters is that I dod not see that template when I uploaded the file. Good. See you in other Wikimedia projects.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yesterday, Jcb speedy deleted out of process a file I uploaded. When I contacted them and asked to restore the file they refused. I had to file an undeletion request, and the file was immediately restored, whereas the deletion was labeled as highly problematic. The whole undeletion discussion is here: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Nikolaev commune 2008 stairs 01.jpg.

We know that Jcb was desysopped by the community as a result of a discussion, Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 2). Please read the discussion, especially the opening and the closing statements. It clearly shows that at the time, whereas Jcb most likely had good intentions, and worked a lot, he had a high enough share of bad admin actions so that the community decided that it is not compatible with the status of administrator. In particular, his communication with other users was substandard. Note also that his reaction on the desysop request was to reject everything. I am sure his reaction here will be the same.

Unfortunately nothing changed. This is not the first time I came across Jcb recently. My previous encounter with him was when he deleted a file (File:Bolgatanbga Museum hall way.jpg) which was in use in the English Wikipedia (see Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-10#File:Museum 5.jpg). He said he was "puzzled" but insisted the file was out of scope and never restored it. This is a typical Jcb. If everything goes fine, he does a lot of work, clearing backlogs, much appreciated by the community. However, he never admitted making a mistake. Just check his talk page: he gets requests to explain his action and restore the files on a daily basis, and after a first polite answer, if the user insists, he just sends them to file an undeletion request. Sure, most of the requests are not justified, but with this approach we never know which are and which are not. This is unbecoming of an administrator, who should not be evading responsibility for their actions. Again, the (successful) desysop discussion describes exactly this.

And, well, if you think I am just pissed off because of these two recent incidents - I am not. Check recent cases: out of process deletion, restored, out of process deletion, restored, clear incompetence, opposed undeletion even after getting an explanation of the policies, file restored. I can easily find more cases.

My conclusion is that Jcb clearly demonstrates the same pattern for which he was previously desysopped and needs to be desysopped again. This is a required preliminary discussion about possible opening of a desysop request. It is unfortunate we need to desysop our most active admin, but his communication skills are clearly insufficient, and the quantity of clearly erroneous decisions (and the manner of post-handling them) is not at the level I find acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Let me get this straight, you tagged a file for speedy deletion and now you want the administrator that acted on your request to lose their privileges because they didn't want to help you after you immediately cursed them out for it? Might I suggest a break from Commons over the holidays? —LX (talk, contribs) 09:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I cursed them out because this was not the first time they did a bad job, and, in particular, not the first time with me. And, no, I though I am very clear on that I propose to desysop him not just for this accident. But well, fine, if you want to discuss me instead of him, I can take a break from Commons, no problem. I can admit my mistakes, and I have ever, on any project, been desysopped. Commons can very well do without me I guess.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
No, the file was not tagged for Speedy, but with the {{Do not move to Commons}} (that is a Speedy tag here) when it was transferred to Commons, then, Ymblanter removed it just after the transferring (see the History). That is totally different than tagging a file for Speedy with a valid reason when it was not tagged previously.

This can be avoided if Ymblanter removed the tag before transferring to Commons; this is just a mistake. But, speedying a file without a valid reason is a clear violation of the Deletion policy and the Criteria for speedy deletion, specially if it is a FOP case --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Amitie 10g: No, Ymblanter removed {{BotMoveToCommons}} and left {{Do not move to Commons}}: Special:Diff/226768404. BTW. Documentation of {{Do not move to Commons}} says Note to admins: Don't delete this template, only pages and files that embed it!. --jdx ^Re: 13:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Amitie 10g: As explained, it is you who needs to read the history; I already did. Just as I explained, Ymblanter created a file description with a speedy deletion tag. That tag was not removed until after it was undeleted. Uploader requests are a valid reason for deletion, so kindly check your accusations of "clear violations" at the door. Ymblanter could have avoided the situation by "do[ing] their work well or not ... at all" when transferring the file. Instead, Ymblanter chose to personally attack Jcb for acting on Ymblanter's own request. And now this – all because Jcb didn't immediately spring to Ymblanter's service upon being attacked. What an utter waste of everyone else's time. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

May be you should just stop wasting your time and do smth useful. Your contribution here was not really constructive.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

(Edit conflict) What I saw is you left the page with some broken parts and a speedy deletion request. What we can expect when an admin who is the uploader too made a self request for deletion? And your language on his talk and in UNDEL are not much friendly too. So I agree with Jim there. And LX too. :) J e e 09:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sure, that was my fault, usually I leave transfers fixed by OgreBot, I did not even notice the speedy template, had a meeting related to my work, and whan I was back the file was already deleted. However, that was still an out of process deletion, and the file was fine. Do you think it was ok to refuse to restore it? If yes, we are probably on different planets.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

See, when a file is transferred to Commons, the uploader is responsible for any copyright violations. So in this case, when the uploader refused to take that responsibility even by a mistake, it is better for the admin not to interfere though he is free to take the responsibility. I think most admins prefer not to interfere to protect themselves (enjoying the DMCA). J e e 09:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I completely disagree, but, well, fine, I understand your viewpoint.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

As per Jkadavoor. In case of this file you shouldn't blame Jcb because you just have removed {{BotMoveToCommons}} without actually reviewing the file. I transfer files from other wikis only occasionally, but they always need some tweaking. --jdx ^Re: 10:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ymblanter, you certainly know that no Admin is perfect. We all make mistakes. In this case, your lack of attention to detail in moving the file made it very easy for Jcb to mishandle this file. And yes, he has made mistakes before, as have you and I. However, in the last three months, he has averaged 400+ deletions per day, second only to INC. With that many deletions, you might expect him to have more UnDRs than the rest of us, but he doesn't. So, in effect, this is a request to remove an Admin who does more work than almost all of us and who averages fewer mistakes per deletion than most of us. The effect of his removal would be to put a much larger load on the rest of us and increase the number of mistakes made. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am absolutely convinced that one either should do their work well or not do it at all. For me, the number of mistakes Jcb does is above the threshold, and, in addition, he never corrects his own mistakes. That was the reason he was desysopped last time. Apparently, he learned nothing from his desysop and proceeds in the same manner as before. Yes, indeed, if we have to continue without him, the workload will be much bigger, but I do not believe it should be used as a justification of the lack of qualification. We can as well write a bot which would delete all the files and answer to complaints that an undeletion request can be filed. Jcb is not much better than such a bot.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, There is no reason to blame Jcb here. There were a few files deleted too hastily, but overall Jcb does a pretty good job.

However, generally speaking, I would rather have a backlog that an admin who wrongly deletes a lot of files on the pretext that s/he handles a huge number of deletions. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, to defend a bit Jcb, I'm going to say a little thing, as it was well said by Jim we all made/make/will make mistakes, I'm not exempted of that. And if/when someone come on my talk page and begin a discussion by "This is a clear abuse of administrative tools.", in this sentence I feel something implicit that suggest a voluntary abuse of power, especially if it comes from a colleague, and the discussion is near dead without to have started, and no one can really expect a positive answer from me by starting in this way. The fact that jcb does not obey to injunctions in this case, do not shock me, try with me and you will see that his answer/reaction is not so bad. You could have say: "Hello dear colleague, I made a mistake when I forgot to remove the speedy deletion tag, can you undelete please? or at least can you agree that I undelete it myself? Regards, ....". FWIW that is I would have done. For me this can be closed. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Not to defend myself, but we need to realize that when I came to his talk page for the first time yesterday, I (i) did not have a slightest idea that I made a mistake - obviously if I noticed that my file has a speedy template, I would have removed it myself immediately, and I just saw that someone deleted the file I uploaded earlier as a copyright violation, and checked that there were no intermediate edits between my upload and deletion; (ii) had a previous history of interaction with this user which was less than pleasant. Moreover, if I am doing speedy deletions (which I am doing every day) and see that a trusted user uploaded a file which is clearly not in order, I would go to the talk page of the user and ask whether it was an accidental mistake, not delete the file and see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
And, to be honest, the fact that the Commons community promotes such behavior is exactly why people say that Commons sucks and stop uploading files here whatsoever, preferring local uploads and adding no transfer templates.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Although Christian has a very good point (Ymblanter should have politely requested Jcb to undelete the files), still, Jcb shouldn't have ignored and blame back the fault to Ymblanter. If he had just done the undeletion instead, we won't have this ~~drama~~ discussion. Also noting that he has this behaviour before to a non-admin, who is Piotrus. Piotrus kindly asked Jcb to apologize for his inappropriate block, but Jcb, instead of apologizing, he said that So of the two of us, I may not be the one who needs to apologize. So better just forget about the incident, instead of asking people to apologize, while completely ignoring your own dubious role in the case. Evidence is User talk:Jcb#Could you apologize for your unfair block of myself?. I hope that he change this behaviour so that we won't need to have another de-admin discussion of him again. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 13:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

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

User:Daniel.souza.silva

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi I just got a message from this user in a very rude language with several pernonal attacks - see here. I dont like to block or warn myself cause I'm involved here. So I'm asking for a second view of some admins collegues. Thx. --Ju Ta 10:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done Blocked for a week, for a start. Yann (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Light show and copyvios

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Below is a copy of the reasoning I've included for deletion of two images uploaded by Light show in the last day or so. Because Light show has been banned previously from uploading images, and it seems she has now once again violated policy on copyrights -- even though she knows better because of the prior ban on uploading files -- I am bringing this here for administrator attention. Masem, en.wikipedia administrator, is now aware of this as well. She was unblocked previously here in Commons, promising to not make the same copyright violations as she did prior to her block. The two photos now up for deletion (File:Valley trailer 67-2.jpg, File:Valley trailer 67.jpg) seem to be evidence that she is back to doing the same thing once again, regardless of what she had promised she would no longer do. I leave it up to admins to take care of this further. Evidence for the above follows:

I've been able to determine that both of the screenshots from Valley of the Dolls movie trailers that Light show uploaded (one of which is now the infobox image for the Sharon Tate article) are copyrighted. The trailer can be seen here at Rotten Tomatoes: [1]. At 1:18 into the trailer, the copyright notice comes up as "Copyright ("c" in circle) MCMLXVII by Red Lion Productions, Inc". Then, at imdb [2], the trailer is longer, but the same copyright notice comes up at 3:22 into it as "Copyright ("c" in circle) MCMLXVII by Red Lion Productions, Inc." and 20th Century Fox Film Corporation." This is two trailers with copyright notices. This proves the screenshots Light show uploaded are copyright violations. Light show notated that these images are not copyrighted. This is untrue. Light show has previously been banned from uploading images at Commons because of extensive copyright vios. I'm pinging the following administrators who were involved in the Wikipedia ANI discussion re: her ban from uploading images: Calliopejen1, Diannaa, Laser brain, Moonriddengirl as well as Revent here at Commons. Since this is a major holiday weekend, I figured it would be best to notify several admins to get this dealt with ASAP. Winkelvi (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@@ Line 160: / Line 160: @@
 == Light show and copyvios ==
-Below is a copy of the reasoning I've included for deletion of two images uploaded by Light show in the last day or so.  Because Light show has been banned previously from uploading images, and it seems she has now once again violated policy on copyrights -- even though she knows better because of the prior ban on uploading files -- I am bringing this here for administrator attention.  {{U|Masem}}, en.wikipedia administrator, is now aware of this as well.  She was unblocked previously here in Commons, promising to not make the same copyright violations as she did prior to her block.  The two photos now up for deletion ([File:Valley trailer 67-2.jpg], [File:Valley trailer 67.jpg]) seem to be evidence that she is back to doing the same thing once again, regardless of what she had promised she would no longer do.  I leave it up to admins to take care of this further.  Evidence for the above follows:
+Below is a copy of the reasoning I've included for deletion of two images uploaded by Light show in the last day or so.  Because Light show has been banned previously from uploading images, and it seems she has now once again violated policy on copyrights -- even though she knows better because of the prior ban on uploading files -- I am bringing this here for administrator attention.  {{U|Masem}}, en.wikipedia administrator, is now aware of this as well.  She was unblocked previously here in Commons, promising to not make the same copyright violations as she did prior to her block.  The two photos now up for deletion ([[:File:Valley trailer 67-2.jpg]], [[:File:Valley trailer 67.jpg]]) seem to be evidence that she is back to doing the same thing once again, regardless of what she had promised she would no longer do.  I leave it up to admins to take care of this further.  Evidence for the above follows:
 I've been able to determine that both of the screenshots from Valley of the Dolls movie trailers that Light show uploaded (one of which is now the infobox image for the Sharon Tate article) are copyrighted. The trailer can be seen here at Rotten Tomatoes: [1]. At 1:18 into the trailer, the copyright notice comes up as "Copyright ("c" in circle) MCMLXVII by Red Lion Productions, Inc". Then, at imdb [2], the trailer is longer, but the same copyright notice comes up at 3:22 into it as "Copyright ("c" in circle) MCMLXVII by Red Lion Productions, Inc." and 20th Century Fox Film Corporation." This is two trailers with copyright notices. This proves the screenshots Light show uploaded are copyright violations. Light show notated that these images are not copyrighted. This is untrue. Light show has previously been banned from uploading images at Commons because of extensive copyright vios. I'm pinging the following administrators who were involved in the Wikipedia ANI discussion re: her ban from uploading images: Calliopejen1, Diannaa, Laser brain, Moonriddengirl as well as {{U|Revent}} here at Commons. Since this is a major holiday weekend, I figured it would be best to notify several admins to get this dealt with ASAP.  [[User:Winkelvi|Winkelvi]] ([[User talk:Winkelvi|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)