Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

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 []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
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}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~54
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~2
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-07: ~122

Other:

• Duplicates: ~4,715
• Advertisements/spam: ~26
• Personal photos/selfies: ~244
• Other speedy deletions: ~201
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~2
• Undeletion requests: ~12

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~3
• Interface admin: ~11
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~4
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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.

myexbackcoach.com / Lee Wilson spam

Three separate users have recently uploaded stock images with text relating to "limerence". The descriptions of these images have all contained links promoting "myexbackcoach.com". The owner of that site is a guy named Lee Wilson, who has a background in SEO. Given that, I suspect they aren't done yet, so it would be nice if the web site could be added to a black list. Since it is difficult to imagine that there will ever be an image which can illustrate the concept of "limerence", perhaps File:limerence.jpg and File:limerence.png could be blacklisted?

Accounts involved:

• User:Valdivz 12
• User:Daldizminty
• User:Harunjag

Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: File:Limerence.png: Clear case of DW w missing source. Google doesn't find it but Yandex and TinEye have a lot of hits. Original image seems to be from shutterstock. In addition clear case of spam, linking to the same web address. Here indirectly by one more hop via yt. --Achim (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done: File deleted and users blocked per spam only accounts. Btw: Registrant's info @ publicdomainregistry.com/whois is hidden via privacyprotect.org. --Achim (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Achim55: Thanks. The latest account is User:Limerthing089. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for notifying. --Achim (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Achim55: And now User:Dayfater. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. --Achim (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Achim55: Thanks. The newest account is User:Honeyshahq. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

And look - here's one from 2017: File:Get your ex girlfriend.png! World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done for both. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Just for fun, here's an even older one from a different "relationship expert": File:How-to-get-your-ex-back-tips.gif. This one is too simple to be copyrighted, but the link to the spammy domain was left (even though it wasn't the actual source). I fixed it. Looks like Lee Wilson just borrowed his shtick form someone else. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

And one more, from 2017: File:Get.png. Looks like spammers infested Commons long ago. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Achim55: Here's the newest: File:Limerence cure.png. And some bonus spam from the same uploader: File:Protein Powder.png. (True to form, the latter is someone else's work, being a cropped and rotated version of File:Hemp cacao nibs.jpg) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pinging. --Achim (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Reneh3790

NO ACTION:

I wrote a warrning on Reneh3790's talkpage, if copyvios happen again this can be disscussed again.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 06:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Reneh3790 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

At Own collages with OWN PHOTOS Reneh3790 says quite clearly his collages are made up of their own photos. Generally I'd just give you a {{End of copyvios}} (which I already had) and call it a day. You couldn't be bothered to enter author information in UploadWizard, well, that happens, here's a warning and do better next time. Purposefully claiming your uploads are really really really own work, that's another thing.

I call your bluff and raise 200.

• Harry Díaz, Flickr, all rights reserved
• Foto Prensa Libre: María J. Longo
• Harry Díaz, Flickr, CC-BY-NC (may have been CC-BY at some point given the Flickr change of license for the next file)
• File:XelaArcoSextoEstado.jpg, Harry Díaz
• Harry Díaz did take photos of the Torre Pradera but I can't find this exact one.
• One image unknown.

• File:Parque Central de Villa Nueva Guatemala.jpg uploaded by Reneh3790, I suspect it's from https://www.facebook.com/pg/ElperiodicoEmbajadorVillanovano/photos/ but I don't want to scroll through 3000+ photos to find out
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/137253937@N05/47106870554/ by Rene Hernandez, all rights reserved

• File:Zona Pradera Guatemala 020415.JPG own work by FDV
• File:Banrural.jpg own work by Anamix257
• File:CatedralGuatemala.jpg by Fernando Reyes Palencia from Flickr
• File:Tipografía.jpg own work by Clau.mrossal
• File:LaTorreDelReformador1.jpg own work by Srice13
• File:Edificio-seguros-gyt.JPG own work by IntrusoXLS
• File:El Congreso de la República.JPG own work by Arielaasturias
• File:Edificio La Perla.JPG own work by Arielaasturias
• File:El Teatro Lux.jpg by Luis Roberto Lainez from Flickr
• File:Centro-Civico-Guatemala-250715.JPG own work by FDV
• la pequeña Manhattan de la Ciudad de Guatemala by Ivan Castro, all rights reserved

File:Collage Guatemala City.jpg can now actually be kept (I cropped the all rights reserved image and added the sources), but obviously this ain't no own work. We will never be able to trust any "own work" claim from this user. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @JoKalliauer, Patrick Rogel. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @Alexis Jazz: , and I do not trust Reneh3790's rigorous own-claims, but I'm feeling to inexperienced (in user-problems) to suggest anything.

There might be one/two >>Own collages with OWN PHOTOS<< that's true, and therefore claims that (s)he is right at this one collage. But I do not looked that much into it as Alexis. But it is quite clear that several/most uploads are not Self-photographed .

Anyhow, maybe if all doubt pictures (s)he uploaded get deleted, we might believe his/her warning and (s)he might won't upload anything again (even without blocking).

Also blocking seems reasonable to me, but if we expect no (illegal) Media will get uploaded anymore, I do not see any need/sense of blocking him/her. But if something happens again it is then even more obvious.

I think the Deletionrequest (DR) is important and I personally would wait till it is decided, even-though the DR seems obvious to me.

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 15:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocking is preventative, not punitive. Reneh3790 has not uploaded any files since the mass nomination and the final warning on 17 June, and received only a single copyvio notice before that date. Given that copyvios have currently stopped, and that they have implicitly retired, we don't seem to have adequate evidence/basis for a preventative block. Indeed, a final warning was just issued; it would be bizarre then to block when no copyvios have been uploaded subsequent thereto. Block if and when another copyvio is uploaded. Эlcobbola _talk 16:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: more copyvios would obviously be a reason to block. The issue here is: say that Reneh3790 uploads some more photos, maybe with metadata this time. Even if we find no hard proof they are copyvio, we'd pretty much have to delete them anyway (unless we get OTRS permission I guess) because the user is known to outright lie about authorship. Well, as long as they stay retired I suppose it won't matter. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 16:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Generally, at any given time, a substantial portion of the images in Category:Copyright violations are ones for which the uploader has claimed "own"--an identical outright lie. We don't block these users until they demonstrate a failure to respond to appropriate warning. This is because "blocks are a last resort." (COM:BLOCK) Reneh3790 has effectively received only one indication (!!!) of a problem--a copyvio nomination on 25 November 2018 (Reneh3790 had not edited since 13 June 2019, and all other notifications came on on 17 June 2019)--and has not uploaded a copyvio since the final warning. Until we have evidence that the final warning (the "second to last resort") is being disregarded, we do not need the last resort of a block. Эlcobbola _talk 16:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

So I would close it here for now and wait for the next uploads

1. If it is a correct upload: Great
2. If it is a copyright-violation: According to @Elcobbola and Alexis Jazz: this will most likely lead to a block
3. if it is unclear: It is in my opinin Reneh3790's "work" to gain trust again, and therfore without Commons:OTRS this will/should lead at least to a DR.

On User_talk:Reneh3790 we have a link to this page, and therfore if something happens again this disussion will be "exhumed"/found again.

I think we should write this conclusion onto their talkpage, that they know it's there buisness to gain trust again, and only obvious (with complete sources/permissions) Media will be accepted.

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 16:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: sounds reasonable. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: a substantial portion of the images in Category:Copyright violations are ones for which the uploader has claimed "own"--an identical outright lie.

No. Just no. Dropping some files on UploadWizard and mindlessly clicking "next" is bad, but not nearly as bad as going to the talk page of someone who tagged your files for deletion and typing out the words "why don't you let me upload my OWN Photos I am taking.", knowing full well this is false. Is this really the same to you? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Reneh3790's comments were about the collages. It is entirely possible they think cropping the source images makes the crops theirs ("OWN PHOTOS") and that combining those crops into collages makes the compilation theirs ("Own collages"). This would me an honest mistake from ignorance of derivaitve works, which is very common. Your comparison is disingenuous, and your comments are ridiculous (a false claim of "own" is equally disruptive whether done deliberately or mindlessly--a copyvio is a copyvio, and knows not intent.) Эlcobbola _talk 17:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: I'm all for playing devil's advocate, but even I wouldn't try to defend this one. (at least not with your strategy) You even try to turn this on me, calling my comparison "disingenuous" and my comments "ridiculous". Are you for real? You say "Reneh3790's comments were about the collages". Well that would have been an excellent defense, were it not for the fact Reneh3790 said "why don't you let me upload my OWN Photos I am taking". Exactly how does one take a collage? And btw, Patrick Rogel had only tagged the three collages which I analyzed here. So that's what he's claiming to be the author of. And you make no difference in intent? Even when the act is identical, intent determines consequences. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 20:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

---

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

DRIS92 vs. Hanooz

DRIS92 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Removes files from the deletion request. Hanooz 11:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@DRIS92: Do not remove anything from a deletion request. You can mention which files are OK, according to you, eventually with <s></s>. And do not add comment in the talk page, just add them at the bottom of the DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: This is one of the files that DRIS92 removes from the deletion request. I provided another resource of this file here before their edit wars. Hanooz 11:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: This is one exemple of false informations Hanooz. He claimed that the photo published elsewhere (in non-free websites) but the source exist in page is {{https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/media/1394/07/21/887398/%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%AD-%D8%AE%D8%B7-%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A8%D9%88%D9%87-%D8%A7%DA%98%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D9%BE%DB%8C%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%AA%D9%87-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%AC%D8%B1/photo/1%7Cthis}} at bottom of site is written "All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License."

• Special:Diff/355799827/next Is it still a deletion request? Hanooz 12:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hanooz (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Delition Request based on false information deletion request --DRIS92 (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@DRIS92: Please do not strike other people's writings. You can vote on the DR page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

WLP socks and disruptive uploads

1. FatGayWhore (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
2. Cracked2345 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
3. Sikderonline (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
4. Sparx_The_Fox (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
5. Samuel Siddiqui (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

These accounts are disrupting the WLP campaign. Suggest blocks and nuke uploads. @Pharos: FYI, and thanks to Hmxhmx for keeping their eyes open. @Green Giant: you may be interested in taking a deeper look for relationships to LTAs for one or more of these as highly likely socks for users with a fixation on LGBT+ disruption. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting them. I have locked all five from editing plus a sleeper at SamSiddiqui, and globally blocked their underlying IP addresses for a month each. Please feel free to drop me a line if there is more disruption. --Green Giant (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Орфорак

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

Recreates deleted content just out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. The second block is for a month. Taivo (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Obakeng-electrobux

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

Out of scope images and copyvios, no useful edit. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Эlcobbola _talk 17:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Meninas sereias

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

• Persistent uploader of copyright violations. Castillo blanco (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Last warning sent, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Terminature

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 7 days. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Lipeh Spanic

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by Didym. Yann (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Humayon Ahmed Emon

Please block Humayon Ahmed Emon (talk · contribs). Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 15:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Indef., as sock of Srp Humayon Ahmed, all pages deleted. Yann (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Verdy p

User:Verdy p introduced [1] a very major change to {{Lang-VP}} on 19:13, 25 June 2019‎. Next day, I opposed with this change by opening [2] a thread on the template talk page. Their statements are contradictory, and they do not respond to my suggestions (using the 6 official languages of UN). Instead, they just undo [3] [4] every edit I make on the template. Their block log indicates [5] they have recently been blocked for disruptive editing. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a month (3rd block), edit on template reverted. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• I’m not a Verdy fan, nor here nor in the other two unrelated online projects I had the misfortune to cross paths with him in the past two decades, but one month (as opposed to, say, three days) seems unreasonably long. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  Their previous block period for disruptive editing was one week, and it apparently did not work. It makes no sense to reduce the block period for commiting the same offence, and then expect it to work this time. IMO, the period of one month is perfectly proportionate and appropriate. 4nn1l2 (talk)

• This is a content dispute between two users where we see one of them posting negative insinuations about another, additionally harassing them on user talk: Verdy_p. Yann supported a friendly party with his block and rollback privileges – should we expect anything else? Of course, a sysop bold enough to overturn Yann will earn high esteem from me. Or, as an alternative, 4nn1l2 has to be blocked too for edit warring and escalating petty content disputes to a serious conflict. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Incnis Mrsi: Justify your accusation of "harassing", or I will open a thread at this page to topic ban you from participating in ANs where your contributions are more often than not inflammatory. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  A hostile attitude towards Verdy_p by 4nn1l2 is obvious to an experienced Wikimedian. I don’t care how 4nn1l2 estimates my contributions, frankly speaking – I have a lot of people serving as moral references for me, whose opinion is important as a feedback for my conduct. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  Moreover. The template is coded in such crooked way that one can’t see old revisions in the standard diff interface. If even me, Incnis Mrsi, hardly can understand actions and intentions of the two, then how might a reasonable person defer solution of the conflict to this noticeboard? The latter is known for its revert–block–ignore culture. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Correction: it was Verdy_p who stuffed the template with confusing (and somewhere erroneous) <includeonly> tags. Verdy_p’s edits had to be reverted on the ground that introduced an untraceable mess into the code. The lengthy discussion on working languages in various countries has little importance. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Looking at Verdy p edits and his comments on the talkpage (after the block), the block seems reasonable. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
• See also what Very p created on Meta: m:Requests for comment/Admin role on Commons (inventing or changing unilaterally the community policies). --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

JuniorJunior

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Uploads nuked and user blocked for 3 days. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 09:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

LTA:ISECHIKA 201906

• special:redirect/user/7915311
• special:redirect/user/7915320

Please block and nuke uploads per ja:LTA:ISECHIKA.--Roy17 (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Jakeirapeak

• Jakeirapeak (talk · contribs)

It appears that this user has returned after a one month block for uploading >200 copyright violating images, and has returned to upload more of the same type. I probably should have checked their talk page before opening a DR, and this may be an instance of en:WP:YOUNG, but we still can't very well have a user mass uploading these problematic files and refusing to communicate. GMG^talk 17:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Seeing the ratio of deleted files vs. useful edits, indef. block. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban User:Incnis Mrsi from participating in ANs

Incnis Mrsi is banned from editing COM:AN and its subpages for a period of six months. If necessary (including starting new threads), they can contact any other editor to ask them to post on their behalf. Incnis Mrsi is restricted to using only that account. Failure to adhere to these restrictions and expected norms of behaviour on Commons may result in further blocks. Incnis Mrsi may ask after three months for a lift of this sanction, which would be subject to community discussion and consensus at COM:AN/U. — Racconish ^💬 13:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs) regularly contributes to administrators' noticeboards with non-constructive bitter comments. I propose to topic ban them from participating in AN‌ threads for one year.

Many of their reports end up archived while they have been left unresponded to (some examples from recent archives: [6] [7] [8] [9]). This has a reason. They often criticize admins bitterly and condescendingly. As a result, few admins would like to engage with them. For a while, I tried to respond to their requests and engage with them positively [10] [11], but I was proved wrong. They attacked me unprovoked with an uncivil comment [12]. And now they just accused [13] me of harassing a user completely unfoundedly. I asked them to justify their accusation, but they did not do so. Baseless accusations of harassments should not be taken lightly as they are real crimes in many countries.

Here are some examples of their hostile attitude. While none of these may be considered enough for a topic ban individually, they show a non-constructive pattern of behaviour collectively:

• They have recently been blocked for making a toxic atmosphere [14]
• Multiple warnings on their current talk page by different admins [15] "you must stop playing games on our noticeboards, like here" [16], [17], [18]
• "smart admin candidates on this site are in short supply" [19]
• "I’m not sure a random sysop browsing Media missing permission as of 7 May 2019 may be trusted in this respect" [20]
• "HutheMeow – a case study in the school for abusers run by Commons sysops", "although some Commoners will fight back, sysops are generally lazy and won’t intervene" [21]
• "The JuTa’s syndrome appears to be contagious" [22]
• It appears non-Westerners are not trustworthy according to them: "Moreover, I know that their landline IP range covers a large area in Iran hundreds km across. Please, do not refer me to trials conducted in Farsi wikis. You are a Westerner and very likely will be impartial, which is not the case for Persians." [23]. Now I understand why they wrote " “our” check-users, exclusively Western" on my RFA [24].
• ruwiki issues [25] "a guy from ru.Wikipedia whose community is bent on pettifogging about who and where did post something" "Let them do it within their cultural ghetto" [26]
• "before firing his admin shotgun" [27]
• "unlikely any sysop in a sane mind would block it" [28]
• "Third sysop joined this DoS attack on the protection policy" [29]
• "not really detrimental compared to demonstrable impotence of the administration with respect to enforcement of blocks." [30]
• "This site obviously demonstrates a preferential treatment for certain person who is formally exiled in the strongest form" [31]
• "Seasoned vandal fighters, where are you?" "Sysops watching this noticeboard failed to demonstrate any diligence in reasonable time." [32]
• "but it’s worrying that a sysop can’t see a large red area in Special:Log/A947" [33]
• Needless hostility: [34] [35]

I believe their ban from AN threads is the right approach to deal with this user for protecting both the community and the project. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC) More links were added. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Support as proposer. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 19:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Support their hostility is pervasive, unwarranted and deeply unwelcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Neutral: I agree that this user’s tone and content are some times deplorable, but I am against any punitive action for three reasons:

1. This user is not an admin, so the damage they can make is negligible; unless the causes for cencern escalate, the only lasting damage will be to their own reputation.
2. When there’s conflict envolving this user s/he is always polemic, but often also right. I may dislike the tone of their voice, but it would be a net loss to have it silenced.
3. There’s nothing in the list of complaints against this user that could not be said also about an admin or another. And since admins become untouchable, it would be a masquerade to demand from simple users what cannot be asked from admins.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Support.--Vulphere 04:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose see below. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Support due to this. Everybody makes mistakes and must be able to confess that. Incnis Mrsi does not confess own mistakes, instead, accuses others. He speaks about himself as an effective fighter against censorship and admin abuse – where's the effect? Taivo (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 08:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Very Strongly Oppose -- Topic-banning this user would set an extremely bad precedent, effectively limiting the community's right to level legitimate criticism against the administration. AshFriday (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Support and I'd not oppose anything that will enforce this ban. T Cells^Talk 14:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Support With a reasonable right to appeal after six months and the convention given to such cases that they may raise an AN request if they, without repeatedly hounding others, can find a friendly administrator to nominate a fact based request, or post it on their behalf. In this way, their ability to raise legitimate cases of mistakes or misuse involving administrators is not seriously impeded or censored. --Fæ (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Yeah, Incnis Mrsi seems to be a malcontent, just like recently blocked Slowking, but IMO it is not a reason to ban/block, as long as there is no name-calling or false accusations. --jdx ^Re: 16:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  This [36] is a false accusation which you asked for. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  The reason why the Commons community tolerates 4nn1l2’s treatment of Verdy_p is dumb: nobody cares of this particular Verdy_p. Absence of opposition should not be understood as encouragement for admins’ edit warring and smearing the blocked user on user_talk. Look: the Jdx’s vote stays for now. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yet more unfounded accusations. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

jdx "bright representative of kiss-up-kick down culture" is a classical case of name-calling. T Cells^Talk 17:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment I feel torn, even though I was sometimes "targeted". Incnis Mrsi's contributions, especially in the meta area, are often useful, likely due to his insight and language capabilities. On the other hand, as already described above and below, there is the less constructive, sometimes aggressive tone/wording etc. of his comments.
  IMO, 1 year might be unnecessarily long, if we intend this ban to be educative, i.e. to allow Incnis Mrsi to do some introspection and to work on his attitude/wording towards others, admins or anybody on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about a topic ban for Incnis Mrsi

Responding to the links:

• [37]: can't say if nobody responded. The second DR was closed while that notice was still up. The first one was closed 2 days after the notice was archived, but it was a complicated DR.
• Seemingly in response to [38], Yann blocked Gustmeister and Taivo protected User talk:Bookworm8899.
• No admin seems to have responded to [39], indeed. So because admins don't process a perfectly reasonable report, Incnis must be silenced?
• [40] was possibly unfortunate, but should probably be seen as an example of a vandalistic username. Incnis may have used 4nn1l2 for the example because 4nn1l2 started that discussion. Going with COM:AGF, I wouldn't seek punishment for just this. Also, this was not on an administrators' board.
• [41] I didn't follow the template discussion. I don't know.
• "you must stop playing games on our noticeboards, like here": Incnis made a valid point about the concerned user not having been notified. I assume Jcb previously speedy closed a report for that reason, triggering Incnis to ping him.
• [42] not sure this was actually a personal attack
• [43] okay that was a shit move
• [44] that copyvio tag was nonsense and it was in use so apparently not out of scope, converting it to DR doesn't seem useful. I can't comment on the copyright status, I don't know what "source page" JuTa was referring to.
• "smart admin candidates on this site are in short supply" [45] Smart admin candidates on this site are in short supply, but that was a flame.
• "I’m not sure a random sysop browsing Media missing permission as of 7 May 2019 may be trusted in this respect" [46] I wholeheartedly agree!
• "HutheMeow – a case study in the school for abusers run by Commons sysops", "although some Commoners will fight back, sysops are generally lazy and won’t intervene" [47] Incnis is agitated when seeing smaller but potentially more damaging cases don't get as much attention as larger but relatively harmless cases. This is indeed something abusers could exploit.
• "The JuTa’s syndrome appears to be contagious" [48] verydy p marked something as minor that shouldn't be minor, JuTa marks every edit as minor. Humor much? It may not be the best joke ever, but is that a crime?
• It appears non-Westerners are not trustworthy according to them: "Moreover, I know that their landline IP range covers a large area in Iran hundreds km across. Please, do not refer me to trials conducted in Farsi wikis. You are a Westerner and very likely will be impartial, which is not the case for Persians." [49]. Now I understand why they wrote " “our” check-users, exclusively Western" on my RFA [50]. I've seen some doubtful stuff from the Persian CU department..

I think a topic ban is a net loss. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: More links were added and will be added. There is a reason why admins tend to ignore them. They often speak in a condescending "I'm-smarter-than-you" manner. Nobody likes to be treated like that, so admins often try to avoid engaging with them and the user feels like "am I ignored on Commons too?".

It is one thing to be doubtful about the quality of investigations done by the Persian CU department (so am I sometimes), but it is another thing to segregate users as Westerners and non-Westerners and state that Persians are "very likely" not "impartial". The second one is an attack directed towards a group of contributors. It is like to say the people of Ruritania are too incompetent to hold any responsibilities. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: no need for more links, after their response here I'm not going to bother anymore. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• In my experience, Incnis Mrsi is one of the few users prepared to speak out against corrupt and openly hostile administrators. As far as I'm concerned, s/he should be awarded a medal, not treated like a pariah. AshFriday (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• Nach meiner Erfahrung ist er einer der sehr wenigen Benutzer, die herablassend und besserwisserisch andere Benutzer angehen. Er führt sich auf, als sei er ein Ober-Admin und muß alle maßregeln. --Ralf Roletschek 22:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• @4nn1l2: I would actually be happy to proxy for Incnis Mrsi (and I think maybe Fæ as well, and maybe AshFriday) for cases I understand and agree with. Could that be a solution? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Alexis Jazz: If you mean copying their remarks verbatim, there is a problem. But if you want to just transfer the gist of their remarks in your own words, I can live with that. However, their disrespectful and inflammatory language should not be tolerated on the noticeboards. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  @4nn1l2: I would only copy verbatim if I agree with that. I'm not going to rewrite, for example, a neutral sock report just because Incnis wrote it. In other cases, when needed, I may rewrite the message in my own words or alter Incnis' original message. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 08:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Alexis Jazz: I can live with that. Neutral sock reports can be copied verbatim. In any case, the full responsibility is with you (or the proxies). 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Stop beating a dead horse, Alexis. About three support votes – a no-go for any foreseeable duration of time, let alone one year. Move on to solve your problems and drop mine from your mind. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  @4nn1l2: Well, I was going to ask for a tiny bit of leeway in case I'd overlook something, but I guess it doesn't matter. Incnis doesn't want a proxy. And I don't understand how I'm beating a dead horse by offering one. And Incnis, I'm mystified as to why you would link my LR request. Now people are practically begging me to re-apply. What's the problem? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Lisamol

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

Everything is copyvio and despite explanation doesn't seem to understand yet. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done One week block, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Rodrigo.Argenton

I have blocked Rodrigo for two weeks. The long-term trend of attacking editors - particularly those who nominate his uploads for deletion - is unacceptable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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

---

• User: Rodrigo.Argenton (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued personal attacking / incivility in this edit after final warning for doing so.

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 02:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

So... more of my attention you want so badly

For those that do not know about the Jeff love about me, let me do a list:

• Random warnings and bad used of template at my talk page:
  • civil warning 02h34min 25 may 2019, check my edits. I was not even here... and before that I was including claims in files [51]
  • copyvio warning I was not even upload photos Revision as of 18:46, 14 April 2019, attention to the edit summary: "Immediately stop uploading copyright violations, please". I've never upload a copyvio with intent. And only had 3 or 4 since 2007 delete for that reason.

    The closer upload was File:Sambar deer skeleton at MAV-USP.jpg that have an OTRS authorization, and it's from a GLAM project that I upload at May

  • another copyvio warning this one treating me like a newbie. Again, was uploading GLAM OTRS verified files . Revision as of 04:13, 25 March 2019

    see my edits as File:Llama skeleton at MAV-USP.jpg File:Marsh deer skeleton at MAV-USP.jpg

  • Now the most absurd of this categoy:

    Jcb warned me, I read, removed from my page, okay? Okay... than Jeff right after re-include the same warning [52] and when I remove again he send me this (Please do not remove valid warning templates from your talk page, except while archiving)

• Blind delete support in files that I uploaded.

  This is a big list and I have things to finish today, so a summary:

  • He blindly ask for deletion when he sees my name

    As here

    Sometimes the sysop do not check the discussion and the file is wrongly delete:

    as here

    As this occurs so often that in the last time, probably to not make so clear that was him, he sign as a IP:

    [53]

• And now the crème de la crème, he said that I was offending him, that this is personal attack, no my friends; this is a personal attack:
  • I'll quote: "we don't need your photos, either." [54]

That's it, I have things to do, so you are welcome to see how many positive interactions he have with me in the last months.

I request to a sysop to check his threats before, he not only closed saying that was a non sense request, but after he did the same for another request, and when I questioned him here, he reverted and block for a whole week, and you did nothing.

Jeff G. already did this hunting with other volunteers before, and you let this happen...

How about an interaction ban? To me back to my uploads and do not have to deal with him?

Peace!

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 03:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Wut.. it's true. You weren't even here. The full "we don't need your photos" quote is "If you can't or won't provide such information, we don't need your photos, either". Doesn't sound as strong.. Not too nice though. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 08:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The edit today is not civil and not acceptable. For the second time today, I find it helpful to post a link to Paul Graham's essay How to disagree. It is typical of RTA to operate at the very bottom of the "disagreement hierarchy" when arguing either at DR (here) or at Featured Pictures discussions. The link Jeff gave is a good example. I think RTA merits a block for persistent incivility. I agree with Alexis, though, that the comment ending with "we don't need your photos either" is an over-hostile way of making a point about licence or copyright information. To a user who mainly contributes through taking and uploading their own images, and organising academic events to make useful images for Commons/Wikipedia, that comes across as a non-vulgar way of telling them to fuck off. Anyway, RTA's reaction to being criticised is often to try to make trouble for the person criticising and so let's deal with the actual topic: RTA. I don't support interaction bans on Commons, and they are frequently requested, as here, in order to censor critics. This isn't the first time RTA has used "How about an interaction ban" as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Time for a block. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Having looked at Rodrigo's history a bit, he seems to clash mostly just with Jeff G. A two-way IBAN may actually be sensible, at least we could try it. And as we have started to use Commons:Editing restrictions again, why not.. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Well that's just the recent person. RTA clashed with User:Wilfredor to the degree that Wilfredor accepted an interaction ban out of frustration. RTA has in the past suggested such ban with me, because I've been a critic and called him out when he has attacked others. Essentially anyone he gets into dispute with becomes a target of crude personal attacks and ad-hominems. Those doing administrative functions (whether admins or not) need to be able to carry them out (such as creating DR) without getting personally attacked in response. An IBAN punishes both editors equally and censors a critic. In the two diffs presented by Jeff here, there is clearly one person misbehaving to a degree that is quite simply unacceptable and so we should not any longer put up with it. I don't think Jeff's behaviour here has been great, but it certainly hasn't reached a level requiring a ban. For example, Jeff, the last time "removing warnings from talk pages" was discussed, there was IIRC clear consensus that we should not care. By removing the warning, the user acknowledges their receipt. So I don't think you should use that template. And RTA has a point about using newbie copyvio templates on a long term user who has uploaded a lot of perfectly fine material. I think this is more a problem that Jeff can have a tin ear for what he writes sometimes, and perhaps needs to put himself into their shoes more. But, this a general issue with Jeff and I don't see it specific or serious enough to warrant any sanction like a ban, and think he's generally willing to take advice on board. RTA's persistent personal attacks and incivility towards others has gone on unchecked for too long. -- Colin (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, Rodrigo's original edit to File:WikiEdu 2019 - Commons the hidden gem.pdf sets a terrible example of insufficient attribution.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 Strongly oppose any action against Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton. We have more important things to deal with than perceived "civility" issues. AshFriday (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@AshFriday: I felt personally attacked. Who is this "We" you presume to write for?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: If you're refering to me, please note that I did not mention you by name, therefore there was no personal attack. By "We" I am referring to the general Commons community. If you wish to discuss this matter further, I request that you approach me on my talk page, as we may become side-tracked from the main topic under discussion in this incident report. Thanks for your message. AshFriday (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@AshFriday: I was referring to RTA. What gives you the authority to write for "the general Commons community"?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I will not discuss the matter here, as I believe it to be irrelevant to the matter currently under consideration. As I said, if you contact me on my talk page, I will answer any questions you have. Please note that I am signing out for the time being, so I will not be able to post any replies until tomorrow. Thanks for your message. AshFriday (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I really want to understand how blocking me will be beneficial to the community.

I'm basically an uploader, that sometimes help volunteers in Help desk/Esplanada (Village Pump (pt)), and Photography critiques.

Different from both you, I don't go after a volunteer, and intervene in every action that they took. I'm only react to this modus operandi that you, Colin and Jeff, have, that's go after the contribution of the volunteer, in more the one sphere, and negativize the volunteers work, saying that I do not work for FP, or spamming warnings, and supporting deletions that was not proper proposed.

It's quite simple, I handle pretty well criticism, but a bully to a point that I no more can propose FPC, I no more can upload files from an import requested by the community, is not a thing that I can handle. This time that I'm wasting here texting, I could be uploading files.

And you do not know the real impact of this blocks and this requests. I will probably have another Grant requested denied because of this Jcb's block and because of this AN/U. And the consequence of that? I have already 3 institutions, that have opened their doors to Wikimedia, I have more than 300'000 historical scientific papers to be digitalised, more than thousands holotypes to photograph, and do not how may species to register, photograph, upload. I'm fighting hard to find another photograph that could handle this files, because I'm a target of this harassments and by the consequence this institutions, that are very fragile in terms of security, can not receive a digitalization project, that by themselves they will never have the capability to run a digitalisation project by the lack of money. I already did a whole museum using my own money, but I do not have this luxury, I even can not afford the daily transportation to the museum, neither the museums...

I'll quote what I wrote in my last grant request:

"Brazil is a third world country, and museums are not a priority, for that reason it's quite common to see thefts (i.e. São Paulo Museum of Art#Theft (2007), Museu da Chácara do Céu (2006)), fires (i.e. National Museum of Brazil#2018 fire, Instituto Butantan#2010 fire), floods (Museu Casa do Pontal (2016)) ...

And the new federal government (2019-) already cut 30% of the investments in universities (some light about this question), all the biggest universities in Brazil, including USP, are public schools, and almost all the biggest museums are under a public university administration. They also cut scholarships [55], that maintain most of the museum researchers, and students, that make the museum engine keep going...

As a result, some museums will close (as some hospitals), and digitalisation that was already costly for them, will be impossible to accomplish. In this catastrophic scenario, any digitalisation initiate could be the only register of items, so it's utterly important to have this serious digitalisation projects running in Brazil, especially now."

And you are here trying to stop my work for personal reasons, that I can not fully understand.

Why I am so important to you both that you need to keep track and include comments every time that my name appears? Why you can not let me do my volunteer work? What bothers you both?

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 21:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, you are just trying to change the subject. Your images, academic and museum contributions to the project are recognised but quite irrelevant wrt to your behaviour. You might want to read the WMF board response to the Fram ban en:Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Board statement and m:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/November 2016 - Statement on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces. Your behaviour, when you are upset with another user or are criticised, descends to a level of insults, and persistent personal attacks. You react to a DR being created on your work with hostility rather than accepting it as a process and discussion to be respected and an opportunity to fix and improve. Your behaviour towards The Photographer at FPC led him to ask for you to be banned from interacting with him, and he offered to reciprocate. Every time your uncivil behaviour gets accepted and nothing done about it, well, we can see the direction things are moving with WMF. If Commons can't deal with toxic behaviour, then WMF will. And they won't be dishing out short blocks in the hope you get the message. -- Colin (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

"toxic behaviour [...] And they won't be dishing out short blocks in the hope you get the message."

toxic behaviour as:

"In criticism of Poco, Colin uses 'prima donna', 'go take a hike', 'vandalising' and 'sabotage' language." - Charles (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC) (available here)

I'm not the one here going after a volunteer, and even when the volunteer request to you stop, you not only do not stop, but also call it a censorship, and bring back a theme that the volunteer could not defend himself as a community decision. So you bring back and back, knowing that the volunteer will respect the interaction ban, and will not comment on it. You distorts the reality, as you did here:

Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_21#Voting_issues_with_Rodrigo_Tetsuo_Argenton_and_Joalpe

As you does here:"led him to ask for you to be banned from interacting with him"

As I, I requested the ban, I, eu, yo, io, je, 我, 私... And again, I will respect the IB, and do not comment any further on this subject.

This distortions made me request an interaction ban with you, but you prefer hunt me and do not leave me alone, and keep bullying and commenting, and creating conspiracies theories...

So whom is hostile here?

"Your behaviour, when you are upset with another user or are criticised, descends to a level of insults, and persistent personal attacks."

That's not me.

Again, why I'm so important to you both that you do not let me alone?

How a blocking me will be beneficial to the community? How block a uploader that rarely interact with others here will be any good to the community?

The block tool is a device to protect the community and are you trying to use as a punishment to people that you do (not) like?

No one tag you, and you are here, again, just because my name appeared, why?

Why you do not stop?

Can you explain this obsession?

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 22:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Miros Dursselev

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

Doesn't seem to have understood the reason behind the previous block: continues to upload files related to es:Daniel Romero-Abreu. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done His last upload of a copyrighted file was on the 27 May 2019, and hasn't been repeated since. ANU not necessary. --Ruthven (msg) 16:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Persistent upload of files from Flickr that are already available on commons

Mohammed Galib Hasan uploaded numerous files, amount is in the hundreds, from Flickr to Commons. All of which were requested to be deleted by me at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mohammed Galib Hasan. Jcb deleted all of them and gave the user a warning. Following that, JuTa also spotted this and reminded the user, as seen here. As of now, I nominated another 380 files for DR (uploaded between 14:44, 29 June 2019 and 14:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)). Out of those 380 files, a large majority was already deleted by Jcb in the previous 2 DR. 大诺史 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I have told the user to stop transferring files from Flickr, because they where flooding us with duplicates. Today they reuploaded all the hundreds of duplicates that I deleted yesterday. Conclusion: 1 week block. Jcb (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

agreed. --JuTa 23:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

DenghiùComm

How do we get category mover rights and then procede to do really bad stuff like this? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Moved back: a) his certificate of birth doesn't read Charles, b) per d:Q45068 the majority of articles use Carl, c) given reason coherence with the other sister cats is nonsense and doesn't qualify, d) regarding finding and accessing media the move has no benefit. See also this disc. --Achim (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Serge: It's not a problem of mover rights: If the dest cat page does already exist (redirecting page after a cat move) it has to be deleted temporarily. That can only be done by an admin. The cleanest way would be {{Move}} but that might take weeks until it's done, {{Bad name}} may lead to an unwanted deletion of the redirect. Either ask an admin for the move or tag the dest cat {{Speedydelete|temp del to make way for a move}} and perform the move yourself when it is deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Profesor tm

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

Sock of Dirham Prof (talk · contribs). Uploads same stuff.--Roy17 (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 Delete Category:Persatuan Tenis Meja Seluruh Indonesia Kota Prabumulih per id:Persatuan Tenis Meja Seluruh Indonesia Kota Prabumulih.--Roy17 (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

See also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Suwanda Sitorus.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Nine Angle Wiki

Please block Nine Angle Wiki (talk · contribs) for promotion only, also delete files once necessary. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hm, not sure what to do, I'm tending to AGF. On the other hand, The Crusader 1973 (talk · contribs) looks like a sock. --Achim (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This is our own click. It could be coz we inserted our logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Crusader 1973 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@The Crusader 1973: Who is "we"?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete user page

Link below is a page i want to delete, but i don't know how. please help me kind soul. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 191.240.217.67 (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC) https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rubens-schmitz&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 191.240.217.67 (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done There is no user page for User:Rubens-schmitz. The user talk page will not be deleted. --Majora (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

FPC contribution changes

Can somebody please keep an eye on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bryce Amphitheater from Sunset Point 2019.jpg? Somebody is trying to change my vote from "oppose" to "support". I'll be AFK for the next day or so. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done I semi-protected this page for a week, and blocked this account. Obviously a thrown-away account. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Jcb

On 28 April, Elisfkc added "{{Licensereview}} Category:Files from 500px needing review" to 1336 files. Elisfkc stopped when Rodrigo.Argenton told them to stop. These license review requests made no sense. There are 108K+ files in Category:Photos imported with import-500px and surely Elisfkc wasn't going to tag them all with VFC. These files where imported with a tool, they are about as safe as any Flickr file with a bot review. If the 500px files need a review, it should be done by a bot.

Rodrigo.Argenton, instead of going to edit war (edit warring with VFC is bad idea), reported this on Elisfkc massive edit to request a mass reversal. Which was promptly closed by Jcb stating "Abuse of noticeboard". Maybe Rodrigo.Argenton should have waited a bit longer or posted on COM:AN instead of COM:ANU, but.. abuse? I don't see how. This was a valid request that should have been fulfilled. (and which I have now done, while the damage was able to accumulate for 2 months) Rodrigo understandably didn't take this for an answer and reported "Jcb abuse of sysop post." No wikilink to the archives, because Jcb used rollback. Guess Jcb doesn't like criticism? And to make sure that no more complaints would follow, Jcb blocked Rodrigo.Argenton for a week.

The damage: 213 files have actually been reviewed at Elisfkc's request while the files were sitting in the queue. Just a waste of time.

Jcb's defense was "The user was blocked over this and not a single admin (or other user) has stated to disagree with the block. This was an ongoing abuse that ended after my intervention. Case closed for me."

No admin declined Rodrigo's unblock request either. And that unblock request was pretty much the most visible thing about this block as Jcb rolled back the complaint against him. I wouldn't expect any admins that did see the unblock request to respond if they weren't familiar with the history. So I hereby ask: please, can some uninvolved admins take a look and say if this block and rolling back of a complaint were justified? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I intervented in an ongoing disruption after warnings. The user was indeed blocked and filed an unblock request. The fact that not a single admin felt like granting the unblock request tells enough, there are several admins monitoring this request. The disruption ended after my intervention, case closed. There is no justification at all to reopen such a case after three months. Jcb (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A few points on Jcb's actions:

1. special:diff/347626246 is not justified.
2. special:diff/347627402 was conflict of interest. It should be decided by an uninvolved user.
3. Because of error #1, time and effort were wasted to review 200+ files between April and July 2019. (In comparison, 51 were reviewed in 2018.)

Yet Jcb's response shows no sign of regret.--Roy17 (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jcb: ..and no admin declined the request either, or commented on the request, or.. anything at all. I wasn't here in April, otherwise I would have probably made some noise back then. Regardless of whether or not these actions were justified (in my opinion they weren't, but let's hear some more voices), to an outsider this use of rollback to erase a complaint and blocking the complaining user would surely look like an admin who is sweeping the criticism under the rug. That's reason enough to address this. If other admins side with you in considering this an appropriate action, at least that would make it clear that this was no act of corruption.

@Roy17: the files from 2018 actually needed a license review, at least those that were uploaded by hand before the import tool existed. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It did exist in 2018. 13 of 51 reviewed in 2018 had /archive/ in source. 18 of 18 with /archive/ in source were reviewed from Jan to Mar 2019. 217 of 217 were from Apr to today, thanks to Elisfkc and in part Jcb.--Roy17 (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was mistaken about the dates. Either way, the number of unneeded reviews ran rampant from April until today. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Pleas, do read my comment at the section about me, this block not only stopped me for a week, this also have other consequences, any future grant request for a GLAM project will be denied because of the Grants:Friendly space expectations.

"There is no justification at all to reopen such a case after three months"

This will impact me in any request for years, and I'm not overestimating. It took 20 s to you make this action, will take me years handling with the consequences. At least one year (or more) from the block to the embargo of grant request follow off. Than, they open the grant request two time per year, and if approved, at least 6 months. So, at lest 2,5 years to a GLAM initiative where I photograph.

Thank you. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 21:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

DRs

Bbdyn and Bubbasax filing duplicate DRs. Many problems with todays DRs. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Comment I wonder why the 2 mentioned users decided to nominate their uploads for DR 2 years later. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Fchtravels

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

Spam only.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A.dani

• A.dani (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Uploaded File:Pierson-fode-getty-825x580.jpg, last block didn't seem to work.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

   Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sayan Garai 94

• Sayan Garai 94 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Same as above: everything is copyvio. Please note user has been indef blocked on English Wikipedia for image copyvio too under account Sayangarai32. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• I've had to get at least two articles protected at en-wiki where they are edit-warring these copyvios in using various IP addresses. Someone who can should probably also have a careful look at the "OTRS" on File:MP Hooghly.jpg. -- Begoon 17:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

And, as if by magic, now uploading copyvio overwriting the file I mention above (File:MP Hooghly.jpg), as Sayangarai32. -- Begoon 17:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The upload in the history of File:MP Hooghly.jpg at [56] should probably be rev-deleted in the meantime as a copyvio of https://www.outlookindia.com/public/uploads/gallery/20190617/mp_2_20190617.jpg (PTI Photo/Arun Sharma (71/1120) BJP MP Locket Chatterjee at Parliament House on the opening day of the first session of 17th Lok Sabha, in New Delhi.), whatever the "OTRS" outcome is. -- Begoon 17:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. No permission in this ticket, and very unlikely to come. DRed. The sock was blocked by Pi.1415926535. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Begoon 18:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Saikat Pal 31 is quite probably the "next" sock, uploading copvio pics of Chatterjee again. -- Begoon 09:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Quite a duck. Blocked. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again. -- Begoon 09:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Morgankevinj

NO ACTION:

There is no reason to delete the logs. User:Kai3952 is allowed to remove the message from their talk page. Autopatrol right is not something that one can choose to have or not to have; it's upon the community. Given the discussion at Commons:Requests_for_rights/Denied/Autopatrolled/2018#Kai3952, I believe User:Kai3952 should not be trusted with any rights. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

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

---

• Morgankevinj (talk · contribs)
• Morgankevinj should not force me to accept the autopatrol rights. See: User_talk:Kai3952#Autopatrol_given. Because he did not ask me whether I accept or not.--Kai3952 (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I just discovered he leave an indelible record on my user page( see: here). I think that I have been punished.--Kai3952 (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

In that case, the administrator would have to delete their history to eliminate the record.--Kai3952 (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the autopatrol 'right'. Edits of users without it are checked better, because we don't know their intentions. As soon as an administrator thinks that this extra check is not needed, they will grant this right, just to lower the workload of the people who are doing this additional check. That's all. It has no effect on your abilities to edit, your edits are just trusted more easily. So actually it's a compliment, not a punishment. Nothing to worry about. Jcb (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Paul.schrepfer

• Paul.schrepfer (talk · contribs)

With reference to Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current requests#File:Le temps efface la mémoire.jpg, User talk:Paul.schrepfer#Liberte de_panorama and User talk:Taivo#Le temps efface la mémoire: Yann and myself have been trying in vain to give appropriate explanations to this user on his talk page. He has been banned for 1 year from deletion discussions on the French Wikipedia for not respecting Don't be a jerk. I suggest he should be warned to avoid developing the same kind of behaviour here.
Traduction : Yann et moi-même avons tenté en vain de donner les explications appropriées à ce contributeur sur sa page de discussion. Il a déjà été interdit de contribuer pendant 1 an aux PàS sur le projet français pour ne pas avoir respecté "Ne jouez pas au con". Je suggère qu'il soit averti de ne pas développer le même type de comportement ici. — Racconish ^💬 11:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Racconish, c'est facile, de ta position, d'aller fouiller dans le passé des utilisateurs et de mettre ça en avant, tout en affichant une apparence de neutralité, pour étayer ta thèse qui ne tient pas debout, je ne vais pas refaire le film, mais je pense sincèrement avoir été banni sans raison valable, sans doute n'aurais-je pas du répondre aux attaques que je subissais. Le fond de la présente affaire, puisque tu en fais une affaire est le suivant : tu as fait supprimer une image sous un mauvais prétexte et refuses de le reconnaître en te braquant sur les mêmes mauvais prétextes et en refusant le dialogue. Je demande par la présente que ton statut d'administrateur te sois retiré pour usage impropre ! Il me semble que j'ai le droit de discuter sur ma page de discussion. Salutations/ - C'est moi (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Traduction automatique, sans aucune garantie autre que celle de GOOGLE : Racconish, it's easy, position, you want to go beyond the users and put forward, all in appearance, the appearance of neutrality, for those who are not I'm not going to redo the film but I sincerely believe that I have been banished, no doubt valid, no doubt. You are here to make it this image is a self made in a old post and a back on the back one has pointing a old pretend and dialogue and dialogue. I request that your administrator status be withdrawn for improper use! It seems to me that I have the right to discuss on a page of discussion. Greetings. - C'est moi (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Je demande également que soit restaurée l'image en question qui ne posait aucun problème de droit d'auteur et dont le sens était particulièrement fort, tout à fait dans la ligne des recommandations qui indiquent que les images doivent pouvoir être utilisées à des fins pédagogiques.

Traduction automatique, sans aucune garantie autre que celle de GOOGLE : I also request that the image in question, which posed no copyright problem and whose meaning was particularly strong, be restored to the line of recommendations that indicate that the images must be able to be used for educational purposes. - C'est moi (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Pour ce qui est des "explications" de Yann qu'évoque Racconish, voilà de quoi il s'agit : @Paul.schrepfer: Cela ne fonctionne pas comme ça. Le texte que vous citez ci-dessus implique que les « œuvres d'architecture et de sculpture » sont exemptées de l'application du droit d'auteur, mais pas les autres œuvres, quand il existe une liberté de panorama, comme en Allemagne. Le problème est justement qu'il n'y a pas de liberté de panorama en France. Cordialement, Yann (d) 09:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC). Donc, si je comprends bien son intervention, quand il y a une liberté de Panorama, comme en Allemagne, les oeuvres architecturales et sculpturales ne sont plus protégées, mais les autres le sont ????? Mais mon sujet est en France et n'est ni une oeuvre architecturale ni une oeuvre sculpturale. Yann est donc totalement à côté du sujet. Et si on veut considérer ce panneau comme une "oeuvre", ce qui serait une manière extraordinaire de voir les choses, cette "oeuvre" est illégale ! Et il est d'usage constant qu’une oeuvre graphique illicite ne bénéficie pas de la protection accordée par la loi sur la propriété littéraire et artistique. Il est évident que le propriétaire du panneau n'a pas donné l'autorisation de réaliser une telle "oeuvre", qui aurait pu cautionner un tel étalage d'ignorance ? Sa reproduction est donc parfaitement légale. D'autant plus qu'il ne s'agissait pas pour moi de copier ou de m'approprier cette "oeuvre", mais d'illustrer un problème sérieux et de plus en plus fréquent. Et il me semble que Racconish, avant d'en demander la suppression sans aucune discussion préalable, aurait du avoir la courtoisie de venir m'en parler, j'aurais pu lui expliquer. Cordialement. - C'est moi (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Traduction automatique, sans aucune garantie autre que celle de GOOGLE : As for the "explanations" of Yann that evokes Racconish, this is what it is: (Please provide the title of the work), @Paul.schrepfer: It does not work like that. The text you quote above implies that "works of architecture and sculpture" are exempted from the application of copyright, but not other works, when there is a freedom of panorama, as in Germany. The problem is precisely that there is no freedom of panorama in France. Sincerely, Yann (d) 09:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC). So, if I understand his intervention, when there is a Panorama freedom, as in Germany, the architectural and sculptural works are no longer protected, but the others are protected? But my subject is in France and is neither an architectural work nor a sculptural work. Yann is totally beside the subject. And if we want to consider this panel as a "work", which would be an extraordinary way of seeing things, this "work" is illegal! And it is common practice that an illicit graphic work does not benefit from the protection granted by the law on literary and artistic property. It is obvious that the owner of the panel did not give permission to carry out such a "work", which could have supported such a display of ignorance? Its reproduction is perfectly legal. Especially since it was not for me to copy or to appropriate this "work", but to illustrate a serious problem and more and more frequent. And it seems to me that Racconish, before asking for its removal without any prior discussion, should have had the courtesy to come and talk to me, I could have explained. Cordially. - C'est moi (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Paul.schrepfer: En supposant que le panneau était permanent et à l'extérieur en France lorsque vous l'avez photographié, puisqu'il n'y a pas de liberté de panorama en France, l'artiste est titulaire des droits d'auteur sur l'œuvre sous-jacente. Qu'est-ce qui vous donne le droit d'autoriser votre photographie DW/fr du panneau comme étant Own work sans tenir compte des droits de cet artiste?

Assuming that the panel was permanent and outdoors in France when you photographed it, since there is no freedom of panorama in France, the artist holds copyright on the underlying work. What gives you the right to license your DW photograph of the panel as Own work with no consideration of the rights of that artist?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not a matter of photo copyright here (the copyright of the work represented in File:Le temps efface la mémoire.jpg belongs to www.reseau-stan.com: we cannot publish this map without a permission from the company), but of the user's behaviour, if I understand correctly. I would formally warn the user not to upload such photos when the work is located in a country without FoP, like France. Reactively asking the deletion of all similar files is not a mature response.

Traduction manuelle: @Paul.schrepfer: La question du droit d'auteur est claire dans les pays sans "liberté de panorama" (comme la France) et a été débattue maintes fois: une oeuvre originale récente ne peut pas être téléchargée sur Commons sans l'autorisation écrite des ayant droits, même si elle est sur le sol public. Le débat est clos sur ce point. Demander la supression de toutes les images semblables par réaction n'est pas un comportement mûr, car non constructif, et n'est pas tolléré ici. Je suis confiant que ce genre de réaction ne sera plus répétée. Merci Ruthven (msg) 16:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Bonsoir Jeff G. et Ruthven : il me semble qu'il n'est pas question d'art ici, ni de panorama, ni de débat clos. La question du droit d'auteur peut se poser sur une carte, mais pas sur un panneau illégal. Illégal puisqu'il tend à tromper les usagers sur le lieu où ils se trouvent, et la loi interdit de tromper les gens. Nous n'aurons pas de vérité ici puisque seuls les juges la détiennent, nous resterons donc chacun sur nos opinions. J'aurais admis sans aucune difficulté que cette image soit supprimée pour peu que l'utilisateur qui a demandé cette suppression ait engagé un dialogue au préalable. Il a admis depuis, par le fait qu'il m'a demandé en quoi cette image était encyclopédique, qu'il ne l'a pas comprise. Après Charles Peggy, alons nous avoir Arthur Rainbow ? Une telle image est encyclopédique car elle illustre une évolution de notre société, et le titre que j'ai donné à cette image démontre que c'était là mon intention initiale. Si des images viloent le droit d'auteur il me semble logique de les supprimer, il n'y a aucun esprit de vengence, simplement de la logique : au nom de quelle maturité devrait-on conserver des images illégales ?

Traduction automatique, sans aucune garantie autre que celle de GOOGLE : Hi Jeff G. and Ruthven: I think it is not about art here, or view or debate closed. The question of copyright may be on a map, but not on an illegal sign. Illegal because it tends to deceive the users on the place where they are, and the law forbids to deceive the people. We will not have any truth here since only the judges hold it, so we will each stay on our opinions. I would have admitted without any difficulty that this image is deleted if the user who requested this deletion has engaged in a dialogue beforehand. He has since admitted that he asked me why this picture was encyclopedic, that he did not understand it. After Charles Peggy, do we have Arthur Rainbow? Such an image is encyclopedic because it illustrates an evolution of our society, and the title I gave to this image shows that this was my original intention. If images vile copyright, it seems logical to me to delete them, there is no spirit of vengence, just logic: in the name of what maturity should we keep illegal images?

Cordialement - C'est moi (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Je tiens à préciser ici que je détiens la preuve écrite que ce panneau est issu d'une erreur et pas d'une intention délibérée - C'est moi (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

COM:FOP Indonesia

Cep Budhi Darma uploaded numerous files of places in Indonesia that may be a copyright. The guideline states that "with exception on educational purpose and non-commercial use", unless the uploader can justify the use of the files, I don't think they should be kept. Thoughts? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@大诺史: Open a Deletion Request then, for the files you consider that must be deleted. The images of recent works, without authorisation, that are above the threshold of originality will be deleted. --Ruthven (msg) 07:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Davo Ortiz

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

Continues copyvios after previous block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done User blocked for 1 month, and some other copyvios deleted. The rest of the files were marked {{Dw no source since}} (probably scans of magazines). --Ruthven (msg) 08:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Nicholas Michael Halim

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

Almost everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Done blocked 2 weeks, uploads deleted excepted one which is IMO a simple geometric form. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Eatcha

NO ACTION:

Nothing to be done here, unless you can provide an evidence that Eatcha uploads copyvios and ignores warnings systematically. --A.Savin 20:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

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

---

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

Oh my Jesus! This user uploaded copyrighted works. Not only he must be block indefinitely but also he must criminally charged for violating Indian copyright laws. He was previously blocked for 1 day for vandalism on June 11 but now he continues violate not only Wikimedia rules but this time is criminally. This time, he is uploading copyrighted works. This is not only breaks the rules but it is illegal under American and Indian law. I've marked the works that are copyrighted. One example is that he uploaded a whole episode of a French cartoon. The author who made this died in 1998. I've will contact the studio behind this about the matter. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserz: never heard of {{YouTube CC-BY}}? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you really sure? Someone of these works are still under copyright. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserz: All three have a YouTube-CC license. If you have a problem with them, you need to open a DR and explain exactly what your issue with them is. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserz: , you are encouraged to file a lawsuit against me (In Both US and India), I'm really interested to meet you in the court. BTW what are your opinions regarding your non-new user like editing at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/SpinnerLaserz&offset=20190622034455&target=SpinnerLaserz . I remember a blocked user who had same editing habits as yours but as I'm too busy now I'm not interested in it. And I was blocked because I was filing speedy deletion for all of my uploads including File:Rudy Mancuso & Maia Mitchell - Magic (Official Music Video).webm, File:Amazing Vienna - Austria 2017 - 4K.webm and File:EDDIE FRESCO - BARRI (Music Video).webm. And what would you say about the license of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4WxiLRIcX4 ? (The french animated series) It's clearly the official channel similar to the other 3 videos that are marked as COPYVIO by you. And I never upload any copyrighted video after I was warned by Krd on 20 June 2019. And If these files are really copyvio, then why Taivo reverted them ? He/She is an admin here, why he/she didn't deleted these files ? He/She has more Wikimedia experience than you. Who is you to say he must criminally charged for violating Indian copyright laws ??? And how do you know that I'm an Indian citizen or If I'm in India ? Are you spying on me ? Or you know me ? I requested to be indef blocked but I wasn't, I think one day block was enough for the problem that I caused but If any one disagree I'm ready to face a one month block as I won't be editing for next 26 days (I didn't edited much since 29 july). I will not defend my self anymore as I'm really don't have enough time to deal with this B.S. for at least 20 days. Eatcha (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Rabin32

• Rabin32 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Adds a false OTRS permission to file and removes deletion templates here and here. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, look a few threads up at #Sayan Garai 94 (which you started). This is almost certainly the "next" sock. -- Begoon 10:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Begoon: That's what I think but RCU isn't conclusive. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Adding fake permissions is a no-no. Everything is deleted. Yann (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Yann. Same image subject, same spelling errors (yes, I know it's not unique), same digits at end of username, messing around with bogus "OTRS", account created when others are blocked... I'll take "sock" over "unrelated" thanks - so they got a new/different device/ip/proxy - CU is not magic pixie dust, as they say... -- Begoon 11:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

상진과 찬호

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

Continues copyvios after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. All files are duly tagged. — regards, Revi 12:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Liverpoolpics

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

After last block I've told him/her to read COM:DW, COM:FAIR , LL, Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States , Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom but he/she continues with an illustration from a comic, again a record cover and a Flickrwashed image. May user be welcomed again to use Google reverse search before upload or asked forced not to upload from Flickr? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed. Less than a month after a previous block that should have given enough notice, we can't afford the risk of keeping this person around. And that's apart from uploading misleading images. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Worldsall

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

I just blocked User:Worldsall for those edits which replaced praises by 12 different users for user's images submitted to Commons:Photo_challenge with votes for 1st/2nd/3rd place in the competition. The block is for a month. --Jarekt (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Johnsonncn03221999

• Johnsonncn03221999 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues copyvios after two warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done No useful edit, 2 weeks block. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Ross kramerov Flickrwashing

User:Ross kramerov uploaded File:E. Gordon Perry Jr. (48123858257).jpg and File:Remote Control Lawnmower (48123725691).jpg from a Flickr account called "gperry2011". Both of these images were previously uploaded by User:Nolimetangere777. They were both recently deleted as copyright violations (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Remote Control Lawnmower(image one).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:E. Gordon Perry Jr.jpg). Neither of the original uploads came from Flickr. This is obvious Flickrwashing.

Has Ross kramerov also uploaded several images of actress Mariela Garriga from a recently created Flickr account called "Mariela Garriga". Ross kramerov created an article on Italian Wikipedia using the Flickrwashed images. The images were added to Wikipedia by Nolimetangere777 in this edit. It is obvious that the two accounts are related. It is also obvious that paid editing is involved, but that is not Commons concern. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• I have no idea who is Nolimetangere777 and I'm not paid for any of my contributions. You can remove any files if you wish but I deny any COI involved here. This is just your opinion. --Ross kramerov (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • That's interesting, because Nolimetamgere777 is doing exactly the same kind of Flickrwashing that you are. File:Carolyn Aug 2018 137 (48176615817).jpg was uploaded from a recently created Flickr account that has nothing but promo pictures of Carolyn Cresswell. Even more interesting, Nolimetangere777 uploaded File:RN Image1.jpg, which you used in Rubin Naiman, an article you created. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• My relation to Nolimetangere777 is only through the Wikipedia projects. Is it not allowed? I left many edits and notices on other editors' pages and talks, why don't you relate me to them as well? When I said that I don't have relation to Nolimetangere777, I meant that I don't know this user personally; if it is forbidden to cooperate on Wikipedia with other users, please, let me know. I just recently put 2-3 notices, informing about advertising or additional references and I hope it is not against the WP guidelines. If you take a look at my contributions, you will find high quality articles about history, biographies etc and what you do is bureaucracy which make people quit this beautiful project. Quality of my pages is much higher than of an average editor, including many of the veterans(who seem to spend more time on bureaucracy and disturbing other users than on the project itself). This is my opinion and now I'm not surprised why so many users are frustrated by Wikipedia administration and its bureaucracy and leave the project. I'm currently working on translation of more than 10 articles from Russian to English(See: George Dawe, Delyanin - are the first two) - do you think these people who died in the 19th century also paid me? --Ross kramerov (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hassle at my talk page

I'm getting constant hassle at my talk page from User:PaulBaker1980, a sock of a blocked en.wiki user, who just won't leave me alone and threatens to continue. See my talk page history, and this version where he says repeatedly "if you keep deleting your talk page I will keep writing back until you answer". Would somebody please be kind enough to make him go away? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say the en.wiki sockmaster is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ben2719941. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and the connection might not be obvious, but at User talk:Hughesdarren you can see PaulBaker1980 continuing on from User:BrendanJayMorrison1994, another (locked) en.wiki sock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Эlcobbola _talk 14:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

User:SHINGO154

SHINGO154 (talk · contribs) keeps (re-)uploading photos without permission from copyright holders. SLBedit (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

WQL

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

This user requested speedy deletion or deletion requests for so far ten files I uploaded, but most were frivolous attempts. Yet a copyright watcher star was given to me after these ten DRs. I suppose it was a sarcastic barnstar.

The DRs are frivolous because:

1. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Roy17: typefaces are not protected in the US.
2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mahjong n w s e.png: simple basic mahjong pieces.
3. File:HK Trappist Dairy Fresh Milk 3.jpg: a Christian cross is PD I guess? Even if it were copyrightable, the anonymous/corporation-owned logo has been used in Hong Kong for over 50 years and copyright would have expired.
4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Please mind the slippy floor! (41862644).jpg: simple stick-man figures are not copyrightable per Chinese judicial precedents.
5. File:越秀区图书馆2013年年报.pdf File:越秀区图书馆2014年年报.pdf File:越秀区图书馆2015年年报.pdf File:越秀区图书馆2016年年报.pdf: Yuexiu Library is a governmental orgnaization, a subordinate of 越秀区文化广电新闻出版局.

I had posted a note on this user's talk page, yet this user took it as frivolous attacking, so a formal complaint seems necessary.--Roy17 (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)