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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:31, 28 January 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	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	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.

Review on F2C ban

May I ask for a review on Special:AbuseFilter/208. I do not misuse {{Duplicate}} (tagging deletion of the existing files but not the new one) since then, and I'm not repeating the old problems. It is not necessary to unban me at this point, but at least a time on an unban/another review should be given. It is just like an endless waiting. I hope I can get a response like Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 88#Editing restriction review. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a matter of trust. A1Cafel have made some mistakes and the question is if we trust that the lesson is learned. I do not think it makes much difference if the ban is lifted now or in 3 months so personally I think that we might as well find out now if A1Cafel will follow the advices/guides or not. So I support to remove AbuseFilter and if A1Cafel makes no more mistakes then we all win and if the old problems return then it will only take 1 minute to reactivate the filter. --MGA73 (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you felt you needed to raise this. 1) Limit of 10 images per day at DR and no nominating of images for deletion outside of DR, until 23:59, December 31, 2020 (UTC). 2) No formal restrictions afterwards, but any clearly incorrect speedy tagging (Speedydelete, Nld, Nsd, Npd, etc.) may be grounds for a block without further warning. reads as at the end of this month there are no restrictions. You may wish to refine the last part, but as that's not a "formal" process, you could also just leave it on the presumption that you are not planning to do something terrible, and explainable mistakes would never lead to a block that would stick. Of course, I may misunderstand the request, as the title does not match the "Editing restriction" discussed. --Fæ (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would only venture to raise issue on procedural grounds. I don't know that there is any basis in policy for an administrator to unilaterally impose a tailored restriction for a user without clear and particular community consensus. GMG^talk 23:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mdaniels5757: Any things to add/comment? --A1Cafel (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, not really. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the blocking admin, I'm fine with whatever consensus this discussion results in. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Could @GreenMeansGo and Mdaniels5757: either one summarizes the discussion. It opened for more than 2 weeks, and almost being stale. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns related to edit restriction on nominating deletion

This user is at it again. Maybe the block should be reinstated for one more year? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And one more. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The ban of not using speedy deletion has been expired, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Edit restriction for further information. --A1Cafel (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Update @Tuvalkin: File:BEATRICEKOERMER.jpg was deleted due to copyvio. --A1Cafel (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - It may have been deleted, but it was clearly not out of scope, which was the reason for your deletion nomination. Something which you would have discovered had you put some minimal effort into verifying your nomination,TommyG (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TommyG, that’s exactly what I was thinking about ever since I was pinged. Thanks for saying what I was thinking ildly! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But still, there are other users find that the image is copyvio. IMO it deserves a discussion. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this is nothing about the F2C. If you wish to discuss, please open a new thread. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the only thing I would have to add is that procedurally, there does not appear to be a clear community consensus for enacting a novel sanction, which under local policy, only the community can enact. We have no ArbCom. By all accounts the community here doesn't want one, and there is no allowance for enacting novel sanctions at the discretion of individual administrators, as there is in the English Wikipedia discretionary sanctions system.

I would overturn the restriction on procedural grounds, with no prejudice toward the sanctions being reinstated if the community finds a consensus to do so. No comment as to whether the community should empower administrators to enact such novel sanction, only that the community hasn't, and administrators serve at the behest of the community. GMG ^talk 14:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: I think that A1Cafel simply ask if they can now be removed from Special:AbuseFilter/208. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Christian Ferrer: Yes. It's possible I am remembering incorrectly. But I believe this edit filter was a novel sanction imposed without specific community consensus. I may as well be deaf, mute, and blind when it comes to edit filters. I'm just going off of the previous discussion. GMG^talk 17:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No I do seem to be confused. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but it seems the agreed upon restriction in October was due to expire on 01 Jan, and incorporated the filter. It should therefore be removed per agreement between the interested parties. Though I dare not mess with edit filters as I am very bad at it. Apologies for the misinterpretation. GMG^talk 17:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, I apologize, I've been restricted in access lately. GMG ^talk 17:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: you wrote "A1Cafel should notify the community at AN when their restrictions expires..." see:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_88#Editing_restriction_review, as far I understood now the restriction expired and they want to be removed from the abuse filter, this is why they pinged you. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Christian Ferrer: Yes. It seems then that the terms everyone agreed to have already expired. It seems @Mdaniels5757: offered previously to resolve the technical issue with the filter. No qualms here. Seems if someone wants to raise additional restrictions then they need to start a new thread and find a new consensus.
The link on my talk page was from a previous thread in April which made it seem like we were talking about separate restrictions. So again, apologies for the confusion. GMG ^talk 18:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no problems, I myself am a stranger to this story, and it seemed to me, reading the paragraphs above that there was a misunderstanding. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This thread has been opened from a month. It seems that GreenMeansGo acknowledge this discussion as successful. If it is the case, may @Mdaniels5757: review and resolve the technical issue of Special:AbuseFilter/208--A1Cafel (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No objections. GMG^talk 18:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any response from Mdaniels5757? It seems that he is having a wikibreak. --A1Cafel (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nicojaba2781

Nicojaba2781 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This editor has used a couple accounts (Nicojaba2780 and Nicojaba2781) to ask me incessantly to make some route marker signs for Chile. I created a couple files on December 23 and since then this user has been bothering me to make more.[1] I asked them to not be pushy or I would not make any more files.[2]. That did not happen and I told them I would not make any more files for them, but that did not stop them from asking. After receiving eight emails this morning because of talk page edits, all from this user, I asked on their talk page to stop.[3] Since then I have received two more talk page emails.

I do not necessarily care what punishment, if any, is meted out by admins. I just want this user to leave me alone. –Fredddie ™ 19:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Half done Sock blocked indef'ed. Master remains unblocked as it hasn't edited since 24 December 2020. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user came back with a new sock Nicobarra1234. I put in a case at COM:SPI, but I guess they don't deal with quacking ducks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredddie (talk • contribs)

Hi, can anyone deal with this user? This is astounding. --Rs chen 7754 19:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lietuvis999

Lietuvis999 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after warning. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3 months rubin16 (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, rubin16. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rk2515

Rk2515 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user repeatedly re-uploaded the deleted file. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also COM:AN#Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No activity since you warned him/her. All copyvios are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ryugold

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I blocked Ryugold for a week. All his uploads are deleted by others. Taivo (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Users:Smooth O---François-Ávila

François-Ávila (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user removes "no permission" and "copyvio" tags from clearly copyrighted images and images without source and permission (example). In order to avoid edit war, someone should react to this. --Smooth O (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct. User has attempted to remove files that meet Wikipedia's standards, possibly in an attempt to hinder my work. Files are either copies of paintings held in a museum; covers of books a hundred years old, or files already uploaded on Wikipedia in other languages'. I agree in that someone should react to this, take a careful look at the matter, and at the user's activities.--François-Ávila (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Editost

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:ShkoDev

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a month. --- FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 17:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, FitIndia. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ricardalovesmonuments

This user Ricardalovesmonuments (talk · contribs) is uploading non-free images on Commons. Instead of caring about right licencing and getting permissions, she is insulting me. I'm reporting them, because I don't see any sense of explaining to Ricardalovesmonuments. User is old and experienced enough, to know how it works. Now I've read this message in German.

"Irgendwie scheint etwas mit dir nicht zu stimmen"

Translation: Something seems to be wrong with you

At least the user writes "Verachtungsvoll" which means translated Disregard.

Thats obviously an offens, intimidation and harassment by Ricardalovesmonuments. Pan Tau (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've given no examples of any such images and not linked to any places where there is a comprehensible dispute about licensing between the two of you. Instead you're just going straight for the ad hominem. Nor have you, as you are required to do, notified the other editor. As such, this should be closed as pointless.

The only real example I can see is this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karte der Gemeinde- und Ortsteile der Stadt Kempten (Allgäu).jpg, where your deletion request was closed by an independent editor as having no valid reason for deletion. There's also File:Umgebungskarte Kempten 1910.jpg, which you seemingly tagged as "no licence". Such a tag should (rather obviously) only be used when there is clearly no licence - not if you dispute the details of some licence, where you should raise a deletion discussion instead, so that we can discuss the merits of such fine details. A competent admin should know this and not delete a speedy request in such circumstances. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a report about the abusive behavior of Ricardalovesmonuments, arguing about my mental health/soundness of mind. I don't take responsibilty to explain experienced users how to use licenses properly (here another example). Your response is more then pointless. Pan Tau (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DISMEYCARTOON207

DISMEYCARTOON207 (talk · contribs)

Childish vandal. Indef block and revert / delete created pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sheetalkumari8101995

Sheetalkumari8101995 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

See File:Karamjeet Madonna Dancing 01.jpg's File usage on other wikis. Cross wiki abuse on at-least 13 wikis. I don't know how to report this mess on those wikis. Thanks -- Eatcha (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marcolacson

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for 2 weeks Gbawden (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Admiral Farmer

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emadadden

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for a week. This user could use some help understanding what licenses are free Gbawden (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gbawden Here it says "a week", but in the block log it says "1 day". Which is correct? --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuraily Lic: Finger trouble Gbawden (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Slafaihdrmyt3

Slafaihdrmyt3 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:بتول باسم المصاروة

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Douurunzhu

Hello, I'm not sure what the correct procedure for this report is, but I've come across uploads by Douurunzhu which are clear copyright violations and tagged them as such. (Some that were less clear-cut I nominated for deletion discussion.) I was not the first to notice these[4], but Douurunzhu removes speedy notices [5][6][7][8] and deletion notices[9] without further action. It seems sub-optimal to punt them all to deletion discussions which are half a year backlogged, since they're obvious copyright violations, so I felt coming here would be the best option. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my apologize for these problems. I have done relicensing as hard as i could. But looks like i have not yet getting used to Wikimedia Commons Upload system. So that's why i am prone to copyvio like these. So i hope you understand, and may could guide me to correct it. The administrator can give me any sanction that available because this is truely my own fault. So i take the responsibility. Thank you very much for reminding me. Douurunzhu 09:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images not created by the author cannot simply be relicensed, they can only be uploaded to Commons if they already have a specific licence. More information is available at Commons:Licensing. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I warned the user. Taivo (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Douurunzhu: Please review Commons:Signatures#Images in signature. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already Changed it, Thank you. Douurunzhu 13:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aigerim Kayupova

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I blocked her for a month. Her last remaining uploads have all "source – from Google, author – Google", showing, that she does not understand copyright at all. Taivo (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Terryanna

Terryanna (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) multible copyviolations Oesterreicher12 (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I blocked her for a week. Taivo (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Agustin Sepulveda Venegas 2004 Fan

Agustin Sepulveda Venegas 2004 Fan (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. This user has re-uploaded the deleted file. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done blocked for 3 days Gbawden (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Delicje

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Turan Etibaroğlu

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3 days. De728631 (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, De728631. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krok6kola

Krok6kola (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Hello, I blocked the aforementioned user for two weeks for repeated COM:OVERCAT violations (e.g. 1 and 2) from editing the Category and File namespace. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ridiculous and undeserved block. Nor is disagreeing with A. Savin ever reason to block. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the disagreement with A.Savin (haven't looked into the issue), but the cited edits are unnecessary over categorization and therefore the account has been blocked. He has been warned regarding the issue on AN/U a while ago here by @Ymblanter: --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two edits you cite are both justifiable and constructive edits. One might well disagree with them, one might discuss them further, but these are not (emphatically so) any sort of vandalism or justifying of a block. OVERCAT is a vague guiding principle, with a huge number of exclusions to it. It is a poor editor who applies it dogmatically and simplistically. A. Savin is also one of the most abrasive and aggressive editors on Commons. There should never be blocks issued at their behest. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know you, so why are you insulting me? COM:NPA -- never heard of? --A.Savin 18:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear you don't know me. I certainly know you, you're at the core of nearly every dispute on Commons. If you weren't the cause, you wade in anyway. And while you're about it, don't template the regulars. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such rule named "Don't template the regulars" on Commons. --A.Savin 19:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OVERCAT is not a rigid rule either, yet you've just had an editor blocked for two weeks for a trivial disagreement over it.

We do however have a very rigid rule against edit-warring, and this certainly applies to hostile edits on another's user_talk: page.[10][11] If an editor who you don't even know complains of your aggressive behaviour towards other editors, it might not be a good idea to respond in exactly that manner. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support This really was overdue. And the two cited edits are only two of thousands examples of disruptive editing, which includes far more than just over-cat. And the current block is not even a full block. --A.Savin 18:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Andy Dingley. The edits shown is not a blockable offense, especially for as long as two weeks. Communication would of been better than blocking as the admin never even spoke with this user to get their side of the story. 1989 (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, and I'm glad for you to get your usual honeypot again. Well, if you would look at User talk:Krok6kola plus its last year's archive, you would be surprised about how many attempts to communicate to the user there had been all the time. And why actually everyone claims that Krok6kola has been fully blocked for two weeks, while I see only a block for one week for categories' and files' namespace? Did I miss something? --A.Savin 21:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your sarcastic welcome back, it's shows how much of a bitter soul you have to do such a thing. By the way, spamming inappropriate warnings is not communication. Now leave me alone. 1989 (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 257: / Line 257: @@
 *{{o}} per Andy Dingley. The edits shown is not a blockable offense, especially for as long as two weeks. Communication would of been better than blocking as the admin never even spoke with this user to get their side of the story. [[User:1989|1989]] ([[User talk:1989|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 *:Welcome back, and I'm glad for you to get your usual honeypot again. Well, if you would look at [[User talk:Krok6kola]] plus [[User:Krok6kola/Archive 2020|its last year's archive]], you would be surprised about how many attempts to communicate to the user there had been all the time. <small>And why actually everyone claims that Krok6kola has been fully blocked for two weeks, while I see only a block for one week for categories' and files' namespace? Did I miss something?</small> --[[User:A.Savin|A.Savin]] 21:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
+*::Thank you for your sarcastic welcome back, it's shows how much of a bitter soul you have to do such a thing. By the way, spamming inappropriate warnings is not communication. Now leave me alone. [[User:1989|1989]] ([[User talk:1989|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)