Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User:It's gonna be awesome and User:Exert yourself

It appears that User:Exert yourself has been blocked on en.wiki as a sock of User:It's gonna be awesome. The latter is also blocked on zh.wiki., apparently for block evasion? ("恢復原先封禁 -->；早前封禁期间编辑过一次，延长至11月"). Both these accounts have edited here. User:Exert yourself has 145 non-deleted uploads, but they also have quite a bit of deletion notifications on their talk page. The only thing User:It's gonna be awesome seems to have done has been upload two files that were deleted for missing permission. It's not clear specifically that this was done intentionally to avoid scrutiny of their uploads, but it may have been. It may have been done primarily to avoid xwiki scrutiny.

Not sure what needs to be done here Commons-wise. We may want to consider at least blocking the sock if nothing else. GMGtalk 20:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked Exert yourself (talk · contribs), as it is the newer account, and has no live edit. I added a warning to It's gonna be awesome (talk · contribs) to be sure that the message gets through. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yann and GreenMeansGo: Theres one more sock account of the group of socks of It's gonna be awesome which edits commons Formosa loves river (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Clearly uploaded files that cannot be own work and are likely copyvio. For your information and action, thank you.--Cohaf (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Yann.--Cohaf (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: you may want to read my clarification here in my talk page. And please help address this issue if it is convenient to you. Thank you. Have a nice day. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 17:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I would like to clarify that I uploaded some pieces of stuff of Formosa through the account that contains Formosa in order to show my deep love towards Formosa where I was born and raised. It's just that simple. I already linked Formosa Loves River to my master account in Chinese Wikipedia. Thus, it has no way to call Formosa Loves River a "pupppet" and so on. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 17:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sourya33

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: Why is File:DEBUG IMG 20181231 071039.jpg copyvio? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
??? I've never said File:DEBUG IMG 20181231 071039.jpg was a copyvio... --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: You said "everything is copyvio"? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 3 days. Deleted everything except the pic of his dog Gbawden (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

AakashAH120

Reuploading already deleted files, FLickrwashing too. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Bulk deletions and an unauthorised 'bot by Roy17

Roy17 has produced a number (I've seen three in a few days, there may be more) bulk DRs on dubious grounds with weak nominations which appear to be simply untrue. No further engagement in the discussion process. They appear to be triggered by some string-matching across the image metadata or categorisation. They may have been done by querying on the data store: User talk:Roy17#Testing structured data

It now transpires that the nominator is using an unauthorised 'bot, User talk:Roy17#Bot?, and thinks that "bots dont have to be approved." Their response looks awfully like an indication to sock, "I will probably create another account to handle massive VFC/Cat-a-lot jobs".

If someone is using automted tools to produce bulk nominations of zero merit, then can't even be bothered to engage with the discussion to clean those up, then they are the last person who should be running automated tools. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Andy Dingley

Andy Dingley (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

In response to Andy Dingley's accusations above:

  1. in two of these DRs Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Pierre Holtz" and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 創造未來，迎接康莊 other users have made counter arguments to his comments. I think they are pretty well said and have nothing to add on.
  2. the rest of his accusations is merely finger pointing with false facts.

I consider Andy Dingley's following actions disruptive. He was copy pasting the same accusations to different DR. These accusations do not deal with copyright of the files but only discredit me. This is forumshopping to say the least.

  1. special:diff/359889398
  2. special:diff/359889500
  3. special:diff/360096115
  4. special:diff/360097123
  5. special:diff/360097256
  6. special:diff/360097316
  7. special:diff/360100028, this clearly deviated from deletion discussion.--Roy17 (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh well, I just realised I was not the only victim: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Andy Dingley&prefix=Commons:Administrators' noticeboard&ns4=1 . For example, Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_55#Andy_Dingley was a complaint from 2015 against his same behaviour of useless criticism in DR.--Roy17 (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sock ja:LTA:MASA

伊藤彩沙は阪急京都線京都河原町駅ですね (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) sock found. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: More socks found. Seems to be either ja:LTA:MASA/ja:LTA:ISECHIKA.
大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Man with an erection

Stefan84007 uploaded File:Man with an erection.jpg. This seems like a pretty normal bit of exhibitionism, but the image is just a different crop of File:Man with erection.jpg, uploaded by Fkk-lover84. Fkk-lover84 is globally locked, so the new account should probably be blocked. I believe we could safely delete all of the uploads without losing anything of value, but others may disagree. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Pablo youngs

Pablo youngs (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Repeatedly uploading copyright violations. --114.150.118.228 01:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible socks

Upload files of the depicting the same place back-to-back. Kinda obvious? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Deferred to RFCU. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday, User:Lina Merlin appeared and uploaded a copyrighted image of cricketer Jasprit Bumrah. This was added to the English Wikipedia article [1]. I nominated it for speedy deletion. It was deleted, re-uploaded and deleted again. It is a clear copyright violation. See [2]. Today, the same image was uploaded by a different user, User:Lakshmanlaksh and again added to the article on English Wikipedia. This user claims that the image is licensed under CC because it appears in a YouTube video [3] which is under CC. Lakshmanlaksh is repeatedly removing the speedy deletion tag I've left on the file. He refuses to accept that a YT user "releasing" a copyrighted image under a CC license does not make this an acceptable. It is, IMHO, a clear copyright violation. I have done as much as I am able, here and at En.Wikipedia. Could an admin take a look? Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Flickrwashing too. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Main account blocked for one week, alternative account indefinitely. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio

Touchedamour

Possibly everything is copyvio. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

All files deleted and user blocked by 4nn1l2. --Túrelio (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao

No evidence of a recent problematic misunderstanding of COM:DW which does not exclude raising possible concerns at DR. Caution with F2C is still advisable and using {{Licensed-PD}} when appropriate could be useful to save reviewers time. — Racconish 💬 18:15, 3 August 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.

Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios after warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Picking the last notification on their page, the upload was 7 April 2019. An upload from over 3 months ago is not "continues copyvios after warning", it's a housekeeping problem. If you are aware of more recent uploads that are copyvios, such as within the last fortnight, it would be useful to point it out.
Note that I have just checked their last 100 uploads, which do all use F2C. None was an obvious copyvio issue. I would agree that SAdN does have an open housekeeping issue they should work on, and that has been discussed previously here (check the archive).
@Racconish: as prior closing admin for any views on whether more action should be required from SAdN. --Fæ (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Two concerns were expressed in May 2019 about Ser Amantio di Nicolao's use of F2C, copyvios on food packaging and mass uploads of files of low educational value, to which they responded by committing to more caution and avoiding to use F2C for a time. Should there be a need to remind them of their commitments or to tighten these commitments, we would need to have a better grasp of the alleged breach(es), after May 9, 2019. — Racconish 💬 12:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Racconish: I looked at a few hundred recent uploads.
DW, maybe PD or FoP but that's far from certain:
DW:
And many files in Category:Tatting shuttles. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me the main issue with the files listed above is a lack of attention to COM:DW, which is not substantially different from the packaging issues raised before. Ser Amantio di Nicolao, please comment on this. — Racconish 💬 15:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I had assumed that it does not apply in the images in question. I saw nothing wrong with the interior files of the Spanish church...I would assume age applies there. We've accepted images of Ndebele pieces from museums before; I don't honestly see these as any different. As for the tatting shuttles, the entire Flickr stream seems to me to have been set up by the person who made them, which led me to assume that DW does not apply as the artist is the one who released the images in the first place. If I'm wrong about any of these I'm wrong, but I am trying to do some research. I'm not just firing willy-nilly. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: It's hard to tell how old the church stuff is, or the Ndebele pieces. If the tatting shuttles were made by the photographer, they're fine. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Such was my understanding of the shuttles...there's evidence on the Flickr stream that they were produced by the photographer for sale. I'll admit the church stuff is an educated guess, but given the location (Valladolid) and it's looks I suspect I'm safe. (en:Valladolid Cathedral says it's a Baroque church, which squares with the photos). As for the Ndebele pieces...we have similar photographs of pieces from museums, and I doubt very much there's any likely difference in age. I may be wrong with them, but I was only following the evidence I had in front of me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: It would be good if you could transfer some of that evidence to the file descriptions. ({{Licensed-PD}}) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:45, 3 August 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.

Odsnapojdjsjsjjs

Can an admin check this out? Seems to be using DRs as a mean to get a message of why I nom-ed his files across. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted, most DRs kept-closed, user warned. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Heeheemalu

The IP tampered two licence review templates: special:diff/360213470 special:diff/360493805.--Roy17 (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I just realised, Heeheemalu's editing history largely overlaps with the IP's. Both tampered templates were done on Heeheemalu's uploads.--Roy17 (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
IP blocked for a week by Jdx.
I just took a look. IP did not just tamper frw but also inserted a lot of fake {{QualityImage}} to Heeheemalu's uploads, for example: special:diff/358315482 special:diff/358414486. (All the 17 bytes edits were adding QualityImage.)
It also seems that, the IP was actively removing images from Category:Skylines in Taipei and adding Heeheemalu's uploads to that (all the plus and minus 32 bytes edits).
A warning to Heeheemalu, stop any disruptive edits. You were given a last warning by admin Magog the Ogre in May 2019. You may be blocked for a long period of time if you continue copyright violation or disruptive edits.--Roy17 (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Closing rights request by Sachinthonakkara

Can an admin please close the above rights request. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by User:1989. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sourya33

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Henry360

Upload infringing images multiple times, remove {{Delete}} without consensus, refuse to communicate. Affected pages:

Catherine Laurence 05:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days for copyvios and unconstructive editing. Gbawden (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much. -- Catherine Laurence 06:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What is a category made for ?

There is a problem between me and Eddaido, about Packard automobiles categories. Eddaido consider he can put some informations (i estimate useless) in a category, without a reliable source (a website driven by Packard "loving users"). I clearly disagreed : as Commons:Category says, to "associate a single subject with a given category", you can add "some extra text [which] can be useful to precisely define it" - not everything you estimate personnaly relevant. To late to avoir wheel war (sorry about that), but i hope an administrator may settle this debate. Sammyday (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for drawing the community’s attention to this issue, Sammyday. The category in question is Category:1939 Packard automobiles, and a cursory look at its history shows not only edit warring on both parts, but especially Sammyday’s persistent erasing of other editor’s work, based on the toxic notion that Commons should be a mere binder for media files and that “data” (that is, information concerning said media files) should be hosted instead in Wikipedia and/or in Wikidata — based on the misinterpreted quote above and on widespread disregard of general Commons’ practice. This is not a case of mere vandalism or mere misuse of AN/U, this is an instance of active destruction of Commons content, nominally in favour of other projects’ but not even excusable by the hosting of said content elsewhere (as in the infamous cases of geolocational and biographical data syphoned off to WD) — it should be exemplarily stomped.
Eddaido, since it is likely that Sammyday will find powerful allies among a certain stripe of users, including admins, I recommend you host the vandalized content at Category talk:1939 Packard automobiles and/or 1939 Packard automobiles (strangely Commons “galleries” are given all kinds of pass; maybe this time that could be put to good use). Eventually good practices will be restored and, even if deleted now, the content you defend will be able to be readded to the category page and further developed thereon.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
General comment more than anything but Eddaido what is the purpose of the data? does it help with categorising images in any way?,
Tuválkin - Should this content not be on articles tho ?, Unless it helps with categorising images then to the average user it would essentially be useless information wouldn't it?, –Davey2010Talk 15:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: The issue here is the stated opposition of the deleting party, not any details about the deleted content. If the argument were instead that this data is unsuitable for any reason, then this matter would be less problematic, but the argument for supression is that any data should not exists in Commons, incl. data that helps with categorizing images. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm with Eddaido on this one. There could be better explanation of what the information is, but that is no reason to delete it. Certainly no reason to 3RR delete it, across three categories, with only the slightest discussion at User_talk:Sammyday#Packard which seems to amount to no more than "I don't understand it".
I don't understand this table either, so I would like Eddaido to please explain some of it (and for 3RR reasons, I'll happily be the one to restore it). What's a "chassis number"? Is this a chassis "model number" rather than a serial number (the usual meaning)? Do we know approximate production volumes for these?
If some similar information for be provided for Cord 810/812 I'd be delighted, as that's a group of cars where their identification is difficult and such a guide on the Commons category would be most welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hei20011016 copyvios

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:142 Eva Nilsson and 143 Clara Nilsson Moseby in Musselloppet 2019.jpg

Nothing that requires administrative action here. To discuss the nomination, use Commons talk:Featured picture candidates. If you think the picture should be deleted -- open an RfD. --A.Savin 13:50, 5 August 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.

Cart has asked me to refer a difference of opinion here. The nomination was made in good faith by an experienced and considerate user. I, however, do not believe it is appropriate for candidintrusive photos of unsuspecting individuals to be the subject of FP nominations. These two women are identified by name. Sure, they were in a public event so could expect to be photographed. But they were not competing to win. Charles (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

To clarify: The photo(s) were not candid, I was standing about 2-3 meters from the running line, right in front of the subjects I photographed. In this photo one of the runners even smiled at me. I was the only person except for the runners in a ca 10-15 meters radius so they noticed me alright. Once again Charles, you are selecting your words to twist this and make me appear bad. I suspect this has less to do with the runners and more to do with your dislike for my photos and nominations at FPC. --Cart (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Not at all, I have opposed quite a few pictures of people at FP for the same reason. Mostly children I think, but there have been a few adults. Charles (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Objecting to photos is one thing, but using the phrase "candid photos of unsuspecting individuals" is totally uncalled for. You are talking about me as if a was dirty old man laying in wait for victims. (For the record, I'm a middle-aged woman.) --Cart (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to say, but I thought FP should be quite eyecatching? This snap has nothing interesting. It would fail anyway regardless of the consideration of subjects' consent.--Roy17 (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Now that is a totally valid reason to oppose it, one I can absolutely respect. If all reviews were like that there would be no problem, but Charles has got this into something totally different. --Cart (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Charles but I definitely agree with Cart on this situation. We have plenty of pictures on Commons, many of them FPs, that are of subjects who aren't famous, distinguished or noteable. How about this image that only just passed? The subject there very probably doesn't know her photo is on this website, and no one objected there. There are plenty more in the portrait gallery, and it's always been the practice to nominate such images at FP. This image was perfectly legal to take and to upload, and so I think it should be perfectly appropriate to nominate it at FP. It's no different to a newspaper covering this race taking pictures of the participants to illustrate its story. Roy17's reason for opposing - that he doesn't find the photo interesting - is of course quite appropriate, but there is nothing wrong per se with nominating the image at FP. Legally we are on safe ground as long as covered by a personality-rights warning, and morally speaking I don't see much wrong with this seeing that photos of this kind litter the news media and that anyone entering a race of this kind can expect that being photographed is a possibility. Cmao20 (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for for contribution Cmao20 but I thought Cart wanted me to post the discussion here for admins to give their views about the probity of featuring people in FP nominations who don't know this is going on. Charles (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It is customary for non-admins to discuss here too. --Cart (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I see nothing wrong of nominating this kind of pictures to FP. I did quite a number myself. In this case, there is specially no issue, as it is a public event. So I mostly agree with Cart. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:41, 5 August 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.

Sandrine Mégret

Per Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Postaire. Note: blocked on the Wikipedia in French for the same reason. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Socking

Dr Plane is a sock of Young Mahasi, confirmed on en.wiki (See [4]). Uploads by user seems to be self-promotion. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: Checked user rights log and he doesn't seem to have any special rights. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah right. I removed the wrong and misleading tags from the user page. Yann (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion by PaulBaker1980

User:PaulBaker1980 (a sock of blocked en.wiki editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ben2719941) had been trolling my talk page here on Commons and at User talk:Hughesdarren, including by editing other people's comments. User:Elcobbola blocked the account after my request here, but he's now back as IP 175.34.223.127 doing more of the same at User talk:Hughesdarren, here, and at my talk page here (which is close to making a legal threat). Would somebody be kind enough to do the necessary? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I note that geolocate suggests 175.34.223.127 is a "Likely Static IP", so an IP block might prove effective. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done 1989 (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Queen Akaaa

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Uploads nuked Gbawden (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Daniela Galvis Mora

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Obvious RafikiSykes sock

Naturiss (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of User:RafikiSykes. They have continued uploading content in exactly the same areas as User:CallyMc. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@World's Lamest Critic: Hi,
This account was autopatrolled already, but the right was removed. Could you please request a check user? Regards, Yann (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Done:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/RafikiSykes. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. Blocked indefinitely as sockpuppet. Taivo (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Abusing multiple accounts: block evasion Максим Огородник - 4a

New account — Vw21V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

See preceding:

See also comment - the user writes that he uses the network VPN. --Микола Василечко (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

And? --Микола Василечко (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

What? --Микола Василечко (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Returned. There was no solution. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Pippobuono - deletion requests

Concerned by user Pippobuono categorizing images as "useless" and excessive "Speedy Deletion" actions.

Request review of user's deletion request history and use of rollback and other editing powers.

Thank you, Agentfin42

I don't see anything wrong in the DRs. They are about artists that seem not to be notable. Asking for the community consensus on those cases sounds reasonable. --Ruthven (msg) 18:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

مبدعى مصر

مبدعى مصر (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Abuse of multiple accounts, same uploads as عبد الله محمد عبد القوى حسن (talk · contribs)--Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Indian Images uploding

Indian Images uploding (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Same upload as Sayan sayan 22 (talk · contribs) a.k.a. Sayangarai32 (talk · contribs)--Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done - Эlcobbola talk 19:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Astros1962

Astros1962 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios despite blocks. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done - Эlcobbola talk 19:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Sayan sayan 22

Sayan sayan 22 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

A.k.a. Sayangarai32 (talk · contribs), same uploads. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Blocked indefinitely as sockpuppet. Taivo (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. The remaining images from this sockpuppet are low quality images of railway platforms which they are edit-warring into en.wp articles with IP socks (so they appear to be "in use"). I know Commons doesn't have a policy of deleting all images uploaded by a sock - but if we keep these we just teach them that making yet another (20th?) sock, as they did just 2 sections below this, is the best thing to do to keep trolling us. -- Begoon 00:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Baazouziimed

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

Spam-only account. Already blocked on the Wikipedia in French for the same reason. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked by Herbythyme. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Train train 342

Train train 342 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

A.k.a. Sayangarai32 (talk · contribs), same uploads. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked by Herbythyme. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Multiple accounts promoting Best Western

I've noticed a number of apparent single purpose accounts used to upload promotional content related to Best Western hotels:

I'm wondering how others feel about this.

  1. Should we require verified permission statements for some or all of these files or accounts? (How likely is it that the uploaders personally created the works that they uploaded as their own works? It looks like none of the accounts using organization names have been verified as required by Commons:Username policy#Well-known names and names of organizations.)
  2. At least the last two are obvious sockpuppets. Note the close correlation in time and identical errors made (compare Special:Diff/340963441 with Special:Diff/340966702 and Special:Diff/341924218 with Special:Diff/341924482). Is there reason to suspect additional sockpuppetry or other irregularities?

Comments from the users named are also welcome. (Everyone mentioned should have received automatic notifications as their user names are linked here.) For example, it would be interesting to understand if this is something that is encouraged or coordinated at a corporate level, or if you are acting on your own initiative. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

No reaction? Do we not even block sockpuppets anymore? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@LX: They do, when they have time. They seem not to have enough time in midsummer (North) and midwinter (South), and that's a real shame. I wish I could help them somehow.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
There's also not a lot of admin action to be taken here - none of the accounts have been active in months, and some are years old. Feel free to nominate files for deletion if you think permissions are suspect. I do greatly appreciate your effort in compiling this list - should another account appear, this makes the case for a quick block easier. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
There are quite a lot of admin actions to be taken. Since the above was obviously too much to deal with at once, I've divided it up into bite size pieces with specific details on what needs to be done:
—LX (talk, contribs) 10:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

Users uploaded file depicting same person. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk page access

Can an admin revoke 147.30.131.240 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log)'s talk page access? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Jamasicka

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Jerll

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious accounts

Suspect the above accounts (many many more) belong to the same person. Their uploads have similar naming conventions and they tend to over categorise their files. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: These are the accounts I was talking about when I asked you about if a CU will check this. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 03:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Please make a formal request at COM:RFCU. You will need to provide some evidence. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: Done, see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Liauyu Riuhwa. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 04:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@大诺史: RE this: "[A]lternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies." (Meta CheckUser policy) This is why COM:SPI says "It is forbidden to use multiple undisclosed accounts in an abusive way" and COM:RFCU is "the place to request investigations of abuse of multiple accounts." Abusing is distinct from merely using--the former is disallowed, the latter is not. Not to put words in @Magog the Ogre: 's mouth, but presumably "You will need to provide some evidence" included evidence of disruption, and being directed to RfCU does not relieve the obligation of following the instructions at COM:RFCU ([5][6]) Эlcobbola talk 15:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Elcobbola and Magog the Ogre: Sorry about this and I'll be more careful and precise when filing a RFCU. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 17:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
EC has put words in my mouth quite effectively. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ships by name

Category:Ships by name was moved without consensus and inappropriately to a new name; that of Category:Ships by name (flat list). On top of that, it was also made into a hidden category.

Not only is it an inappropriate, unneeded, unwanted name for it, but it is also the wrong place for it (hidden away).

This category is arguably the most important cat in its subject, second only to Watercraft and Ships; it's certainly more important than Naval ships of the United States of whom it is a parent. As it is for many other including Merchant ships by name etc. Indeed in theory every ship name cat on the project should be in it in lieu of the others mentioned here. It's also self evident that a poorly designed category or one in the wrong place will create an excessive amount of admin just to keep it up to date. This cat is consistently ignored as users add ships to it on an ongoing basis, far exceeding those ships that are added to Ships by name (flat list). It has become a sink hole of effort as it has to be regularly decanted into Ships by name (flat list)

Even the phrase Ships by name (flat list) is made up piece of original work; flat list is a term unknown to the English speaking world and should never have been employed. My warnings of all of the above were consistently and bloody mindedly ignored. So it has been left for a year to prove my point, which, now proven, should be made right. I respectfully ask the project to revert to Ships by name, return its contents, and delete this spurious pretender Ships by name (flat list). Broichmore (talk)

 Not done Obviously wrong page, no user problem. Please use Commons:Categories for discussion, or talk to the creator of the category. --A.Savin 14:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

NEGUS1010X / NEGUS1010

Obvious sockpuppetry and persistent copyright violations. In February 2019, NEGUS1010X uploaded multiple copyvio images, which resulted in receiving last warning on the user's talk page. In July 2019, NEGUS1010 started uploading multiple copyvio images. For example, File:Calboy.jpg has been uploaded by these accounts three times: twice by NEGUS1010X and once by NEGUS1010. Please block both accounts. --114.158.252.182 17:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Sock blocked, all filed deleted. Yann (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I came across File:171001 코리아 뮤직 페스티벌 블랙핑크 (7).jpg which was recently added to the en.Wikipedia article Jisoo. This was uploaded to commons on 24 January 2018 by User:Maddie Rice, and later that day was by reviewed and approved by User:Techyan. What is odd is Maddie Rice linked to the source, [7] which has a clear copyright notice on it, and no indication (as far as I can tell) that these photos are under the claimed CC Share-alike license. Can someone tell me what I'm missing - this looks like a copyrighted professional photograph, which shouldn't be on Commons. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The image was released under the free license of CC BY 4.0. That notice is still visible today. Please read User:-revi/Tistory#How to find a license on the tistory.com pages to know where you can find it. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. That wasn't clear at all! I appreciate the pointer. Railfan23 (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thempirecrew

Can an admin delete the above stuff. User keeps removing DR templates. Thanks. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@大诺史: Blocked & deleted by Эlcobbola, thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Help

Users uploaded files depicting the same person. Paris Hamilton uploaded File:Parriss.jpg and PoulDeLaSaise File:Paris Hamilton.jpg both files are relatively similar. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted, users warned. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Manakpreet Singh

Manakpreet Singh (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

An extensive reading of COM:L and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India seems necessary. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Adilanos

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef blocked for repeated copyvios after numerous warnings and serial re-creator of previously deleted copyvios.  JGHowes  talk 21:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

จันทร์ธาดา

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

Continues copyvios despite block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for one month. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Jcb

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.

Hi, I have asked several times Jcb to bring his deletions back to agreed common standard. He removed my messages without answering. Again today, I asked him to undelete Commons:Deletion requests/Template:The Stand News, which was deleted against all consensus and without any valid rationale. His only answer was that I have "something personal" against him. This is obviously complete bullshit. I used to have good terms with Jcb. Seeing the current situation, and the refusal to amend, I don't think Jcb can stay as an admin. I therefore request his de-adminship. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Talking to him is useless...--UltimoGrimm (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Not to mention that complains against Jcb are recurrent (understatement). The last serious one: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 71#User:Jcb. Yann (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Could I just point out COM:DR does state "The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept, it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' precautionary principle." (emphasis mine)
If Jcb won't undelete the files then the next best place is Commons:Undeletion requests,
I can understand the frustration with files being deleted and what appears to be a close ignoring all !votes however the files were deleted per Commons:Licensing - Not one !vote said why Commons:Licensing doesn't apply nor was there any policy backed reason, You had comments such as "Since the Stand News said that "any organization or person can freely use", obviously it means that we can republicate, distribute and use it in anyway" (no evidence was added that stated this) and "This DR will make many article lose a lot of images, I don't want to see that.",
IMHO I see nothing wrong with Jcb's actions here - As the quote above states "Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law". –Davey2010Talk 17:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
If it were an isolated case, I would not care, but this is the last in a looong list of problems. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I'm completely wrong but it just feels like you're looking for an excuse to get Jcb desysopped or atleast blocked ....could be completely wrong on that (and if I am sorry). –Davey2010Talk 17:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you are completely wrong. But at some point, I don't see why Jcb's deletions should be evaluated with a different standard than others. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I would've applied the same standards to whoever the admin was, –Davey2010Talk 17:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Perfectly reasonable outcome for that deletion "discussion." The first {{keep}} comment explicitly stated that they didn't get the point, which was obvious, and most of the others were just " 1" based on that. Admins can and should ignore comments that ignore policy. I say that as someone who once defended a "may be used freely" template and had to eat humble pie after clarification from the would-be licensor. Lesson learned. If the copyright holder really wants to allow modification and commercial use, getting them to state it explicitly shouldn't be a big deal. Blanking out talk page comments isn't exactly collegial, but neither was the tone of your comment. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yann somehow thinks that they should complain at my talk page about every decission they disagree with, but without explaining why the decission would be wrong. "This is very well OK for Commons." is not really helpful if you are so convinced that you are always right and that all your colleagues should do exactly what you would have done. I try to act in accordance with our policies. If you think I misinterpret something and you want to have any chance to convince me, you will have to found your claims. Last week I came back from three weeks without internet (away from everything to construct (and drill) a source of drinking water for a small village without any water source, successfully, they now have plenty of water), and I was not amused at all to see that you kept adding those hostile comments to my user talk page during that whole period. I hope these behavioural issues are not signs that you are on your way to derail the way INC did. Jcb (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
you are the only admin who is regularly mentioned on this page, I would ask myself two questions--UltimoGrimm (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Strongly oppose any action against Jcb. He is a hard working, fair-minded administrator who has never abused his powers. No evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever. AshFriday (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Actions by Yann

Yann has had the habit of wheelwarring for a lot of time. The latest example is the above mentioned DR. Yann undeleted Template:The Stand News without waiting for the outcome of the UDR. It's also rather obvious, just by reading their own comments above, that Yann is way too involved to take a decission on such UDR. Jcb (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

LoL, just LoL. Yann (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
What’s to laugh about? You restored a template without closure of the discussion while in a dispute with Jcb about the closure. Seriously, let an uninvolved admin make the decisions. 1989 (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
You have it backwards: I didn't restore the template because I have a disagreement with Jcb. But I have a disagreement with Jcb because he deleted the template and the files without a valid reason. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:03, 18 August 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.

Ranna banna 24

✓ Done Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I see you actually blocked the sock indef, which is obviously the correct thing to do. Cheers. -- Begoon 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Patrick Rogel

The file they reported has been deleted. No further comment needs to be made. 1989 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 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.

I am being bullied and harassed by Patrick Rogel (talk · contribs), because I uploaded a Flickr picture with a perfectly fine licence. He accuses me of having uploaded an unfree image (which I haven't, since the licence is fine), and has started a deletion request, where he repeatedly blames me for "Flickrwashing", which I haven't done since the licence is fine. Could someone please step in? --Edelseider (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Edelseider: should take some fresh air (as he was advised to) then make what is entended to him to keep the image he has uploaded. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Patrick Rogel is perfectly right here. This file is not OK: it was copied from Facebook, and it is not a selfie, so we need the permission from the photographer, not the subject. Flickrwashing may not be the right term, as there is probably no bad intent, but still not OK for us. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
But it says "Instagram" and not "Facebook" in the original Flickr file, so even acknowledging the fact that Instagram belongs to Facebook, it is false and misleading to say that the image came from Facebook (the support) as opposed to from Instagram (the support). Why would Patrick Rogel misstate that repeatedly? --Edelseider (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is not possible to distinguish Facebook from Instagram, just looking at the EXIF data, but it doesn't change anything. The Flickr account holder is not the photographer, and at best, has probably only a license to use the file, and she is not the copyright holder, and is not able to release it under a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 Comment @Yann: It's sometimes stated "Instagram" on the EXIF files but I don't know if it's always the case. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I saw files claimed to be from Instagram without that mention, and I don't want to create an account there just to test it. ;o) Regards, Yann (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Yann and Patrick Rogel: I believe that files that came directly from Instagram (taken with the in-app camera and saved to phone) without any edits to the file will show Instagram in the EXIF. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:48, 18 August 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.

Katezz91

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Anfproduction

Everything seems to be copyvio. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Final warning given at 14:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC), user had stopped contributing by 12:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC). Blocks should be preventive, not punitive. Any more copyvios by the user will result in a block. Files may be deleted, though. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Abusing multiple accounts: block evasion Максим Огородник - 5

New account — Shmankivtsi2019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

See preceding:

--Микола Василечко (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indefinitely. De728631 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. De728631 (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

CEFICEFI

User has not contributed to Commons for over a month. According to COM:BP, blocks should be preventive, not punitive. If you think there is something wrong with the files, you may nominate them for deletion. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:39, 19 August 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.

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

This user has repeatedly uploaded images stolen from website. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Does not appear to have uploaded any copyvios since April. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
May I warn this user? --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
"Recent" uploads are dubious claim of own work. No metadata. Low res. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

To admins. As you can see from CEFICEFI's talk page, CEFICEFI has repeated obvious copyright violations. Do admins do nothing for this user? "Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing." (This sentence is in Copyvionote) Is this not true? --Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:16, 19 August 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.

AviationNC

Upload unfree files even after block expires. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Third blocked, no useful edit, indef., all files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

IBionicBoy

Continues copyvios despite block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Third blocked, no useful edit, indef., all files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sheetal parmar

Continues copyvios despite block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Jeff988

User have same interest as AviationNC (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information), uploading fair use logos (Qantas). 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Bacem1

Keeps reuploading the same file. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 17:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I blocked Bacem for a week. All uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Multiple accounts (Wasilsaly)

User:Wasilsaly is clearly the same as User:Wasilan. Similar username, both's history is uploading tons of license-violating images of artwork by en:Draft:Sabri al-Haiki (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wasilan and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wasilsaly. I'm pretty sure User:الحيقي is also the same: at that bulk-DR of Wasilsaly, some of the deleted images are now bluelinks as uploads by الحيقي. That user has uploaded a ton of other pictures of artwork as well (behavioral pattern in addition to some specific file overlaps) and was created and became active the same day that Wasilsaly went dormant. DMacks (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Socks blocked, images nominated for deletion, main account warned. Yann (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: From the look of it the main account uploaded images from the same source as the other accounts. Should I nom them for deletion too and/or undue its edits? Don Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 22:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@DonSpencer1: Sockpuppetry alone is not a valid reason for deletion. So if the images are copyright violations, or are not in scope, then yes, you can nominate them for deletion. Actually I blocked the account for uploading again images without a valid permission. All files are tagged. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
As I thought, okay, thank you! Don Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 06:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Madhar Nabil Ahmed

Uploads and reuploads out of scope images. Seems he doens't (want to) get it despite explainations. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

hello Patrick , my english is not good but i tell you is about the picture i change more picture because i take all picture with my phone i am the authors. can you please give the good reason why is deleted. --Madhar Nabil Ahmed (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Les messages qui vous ont été laissé sur votre page de discussion l'ont été dans la langue que vous avez choisi, soit le Français. Ils sont suffisamment éloquents. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 Not done Dya-Eddine Saïd Bamakhrama is the ambassador of Djibouti to Saudi Arabia [8]. This is clearly not a personal file. Most files uploaded by this user have probably been deleted wrongly. I will review them all. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Absolutely not. fr:Utilisateur:Madhar Nabil Ahmed has been deleted July 4 so CSD F10 is valid. Since July 4 and for a month and a half Administrators @Gbawden: and @Jcb: have repeatetly deleted these files for the same reason, said user to stop uploading such images without sucess to date, hence this report. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: What does this have to do with a user page on the French Wikipedia?
Madhar Nabil Ahmed is a Wikimedia user, whereas Dya-Eddin Said Bamakhrama is a notable person in the real world. He is the ambassador of Djibouti to Saudi Arabia. His photos are within the scope of Wikimedia Commons. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Your rationale for him for being in scope is an Instagram account, are you kidding? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC) P. S. In the meantime your fellow Administrators have closed this discussion please revert that sentence, thanks. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I don't see any reason to doubt that Dya-Eddin Said Bamakhrama is the ambassador of Djibouti to Saudi Arabia. As such his pictures are in scope. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
No, I am not kidding, Patrick Rogel. Category:Ambassadors of Djibouti are within the scope of Commons and are not qualified for COM:CSD#F10. If you think otherwise, feel free to open a DR. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: I've mistaken Madhar Nabil Ahmed images with the ones of Dya-Eddine Saïd Bamakhrama, my bad. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sandrine Mégret (again)

Probable escape block by Postaire (talk · contribs). Continues copyvios or reuploads previously deleted files. Please note Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Postaire. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Sandrine indefinitely. All her uploads are nominated for deletion and some of them I deleted speedily. Taivo (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
It looks like two early files were missed and also lacked permission; I tagged them too. Don Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 22:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Artinpl

I'm not too familiar with relevant policy but is "delete yourself" a (1) good reason to reverse a speedy deletion copyvio request and/or (2) a threat of some kind? In any case, very unpleasant. You may also see this at enWP. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This edition was sneaky, this user is deleting and disputing my work wherever he can. Artinpl (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
If someone only ever uses h-self as a source to identify portraits & other images and then to profess in a multitude of Wikipedia aticles that such an identification is legitimate as sourced (i.e. the kind of "work" which is not allowed there), someone else is bound to discover and disclose that eventually. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
SergeWoodzing, sorry, but I don't get it. A depicted 16th-century painting is tagged {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} and you requested deletion because of "Copyright claim at Flickr is unacceptable"??? --Achim (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Edit: Ah, just noticed File talk:Anonymous Lady with eagle pendant.jpg. --Achim (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for asking! I did not want to remove the PD-Art|PD-old-100 tag, only because I've experienced that the uploader is prone to edit wars and unpleasant remarks and I'd like to cut down on that. The uploader has made changes since I reported this. Actually, there is no evidence of any kind, with a reliable source, that this image is old. That, together with the fact that the uploader h-self alleges to have a copyright on it "© ML, all rights reserved" here, to me would make any PD-Old tagging inappropriate. This could be a drawing of anyone, by anyone, done anytime, for all we know, as based solely on sources and allegations by the uploader. (I could draw a "famous" great-x25-grandmother, upload her to Geni or Ancestry & then try to get her into Wikipedia articles.) We need reliable sources, and all we're getting from this user is things like "I am signing my own research with my name, this should be sufficient, no matter where published." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
So flickr/facebook looks like 2nd-hand source. Artinpl, where did you File:Anonymous Lady with eagle pendant.jpg scan from? --Achim (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, pages created by the uploader h-self at Flickr, Facebook, Pintarest etc. (as addressed here) never have any other sources than the uploader h-self, as far as I've seen. In other words, unfortunaltely for Commons, this particular item looks like the tip of an iceberg. I hope I'm wrong, but the whole thing certainly needs attention. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Source, references, and decription are clear. I am not doing anything wrong here, as Artinpl is individual, educational project. Here is some more clarification about the file [9], which represent my own research and flickr/facebook are frequently a source here. The file from flickr is not the same, hence it was added as refs. I made many valuable contributions and ceded to public domain many of my works and this is only aimed at making harm to me and show how meaningless I am. I am not making any editions to this article as it is owned by one user, who do not accept any new ideas. Artinpl (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

User also keeps reverting here arbitrarily, to add h own unsourced conjecture over and over, without using talk. Speedy deletion there is warranted, due to obvious copyright violation. The file, as unidentified & not reliably sourced in any way, is under the uploader's personal copyright as given in the Flickr link also submitted above.

Claims of article ownership are far from factual, as are claims of being persecuted. Accusations of that type, with no basis, constitute personal attacks. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I will wait for another few days for the user to reply to Achim's question before reverting the conjecture again & tagging that image for speedy deletion again as a copyvio on an unknown image under copyright to the uploader. Nothing (nothing) other than the user's own allegations has been stated yet to explain or substantiate

  1. where this image came from to the uploader?
  2. where the original is today?
  3. whether or not it actually is old?
  4. who it represents as a portrait?
  5. why it is under copyright to the uploader?
  6. why the user has added it to various Wikipedia articles with no other source (none at all) but h-self?

The lack of all that information is unacceptable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

As per h own info in the first link provided above, the user is also known as "Marcin Latka" and the image is copyrighted to that name in the Flickr link. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a permanent block on enWP for "Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host" and subsequent block evasion under a new name there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

All this looks like stalking. Artinpl (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Achim made a very brief appearance here 6 days ago and asked the user a question which was answered summarily and somewhat cavalierly. Anyone else interested in self-copyrighted, unknown images being on Commons and/or in habitual self-sourcing? Just askin'. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

User's new account at enWP has now been blocked indef like the previous one has been since 2017. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Each day there will a new report here about my activity? I ceased all my interactions with this user. Despite trillions of guidelines I am feeling harrassed and no one is doing nothing, this is the best proof how effective they are. Artinpl (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This is not about interaction between any users. It's about the 6 unanswered questions above re: this image. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Marcin, zakładam dobrą wiarę. That is, I will take no measures against you. a) The block of your account on en:wp was finally a soft one because of your user name and b) it has no effect here on commons. I can understand that you feel stalked by Serge's peeking and poking. On the other hand: Some months ago we had to delete an image of a contemporary painting that had been made in late medieval style. Of your uploaded File:Anonymous Lady with eagle pendant.jpg we know nothing: No painter, no reliable info about who's depicted, no real source. If I lived in Vienna I'd have a closer look, but so it will be deleted precautionary. Please add the source of your image in a verifyable way, not only facebook or flickr. Btw, I agree that it looks like 16th century and also that File:Okänd kvinna kallad Anna prinsessa av Sverige - Nationalmuseum - 15094.tif might be attributed wrongly to depict Anna Vasa. --Achim (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I too always like to assume good faith (zakładam dobrą wiarę), when that is realistically possible.

The current block at English Wikipedia is for abusing multiple accounts. Frankly, I am very surprised & dismayed that any Commons administrator would choose to agree in criticism of someone who's tried to investigate such matters a bit, and who's recommended a wider investigation of the actions of this user at Commons in uploading vast amounts of images that seem to be sourced only to h-self; a user who also could upload any (any) image to Commons which is clearly copyrighted to h-self on Flickr. Has this user really (really) taken all those beautiful museum-quality photographs h-self? Well-known museum photographers normally have a few listings as such (listings not created by themselves) e.g. on Google. There is no such thing, not one, that I can find. Who really took them? If the user and the administrator know each other, perhaps an uninvolved administrator would like to have a look? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The block log reads "Promotional username, soft block", but that doesn't matter because this is Commons. I'm not willing to accept Commons to be used as another stage for trouble some users have on a different wm project. So I'll leave any decision regarding this case to others. I don't see Marcin's disrupting behavior here on Commons, but maybe someone else does. As I said, I'm fine with the image in question to be deleted if it's not sourced adequately. --Achim (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, however you are still looking at the old block, not the recent one which is not soft. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
What is the reason of a soft block? To give the user an opportunity to create another account. To block that new account per "block evasion" is just a joke. --Achim (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
If you choose to call that "just a joke", an indefinite block for sock puppetry applied by an administrator like User:Jpgordon with 15 years of Wikipedia experience, that is up to you. I don't think it's a good idea, but it does look similar to your friend's the addition of Minnie Micky Mouse to a third-opinion volunteer's input (linked here below). Constructive suggestion: strike that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't accept that you presume me to be a friend of Artinpl. I didn't know anything about him until you opened this case. --Achim (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Anna Vasa image

Re: attribution of the generally accepted Anna Vasa image (a subject not actually concerned in this section): I have given evidence here that 3 Swedish academics have used the image in their books: "The image which the National Museum does not choose to identify specifically (that's not unusual) is used in several respected books by academics, e.g by Lars W Ericson (p. 318), Dr. Ulf Sundberg (p. 63) and Dr. David Norrman (p. 128h). All the museum has done is decline to identify. That does not mean they have said it is not Anna." To that and the helpful opnion of a third opinion editor,this user has replied with "I am signing my own research with my name, this should be sufficient, no matter where published." plus a gallery picture of Minnie Micky Mouse! Is it any wonder if the user is considered hard to deal with in good faith? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: attribution of the not generally accepted Anna Vasa image (a subject not actually concerned in this section): During these years the fashion changed quite rapidly as it is verifyable by very many paintings. That fact allows us to state by consideration of clothing, fabric, hairstyle, jewelry etc. that this painting depicts a young lady in the 1630s ( /- a few years). Assuming her to be Anna Vasa (1558-1625) would mean that she is shown in her year of death aged 56. That is obviously not the case. --Achim (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
It is not unheard of that older portaits are updated re: fashions to show later trends than were relevant during the lifetime of the subject. In any case, I suggest we go by the academics I listed, not by any interpretations of our own. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Queen Kristina as a Child - Nationalmuseum - 23742.tif: Same style, same painter/workshop (Elbfas'), same time. Must have been created after her father's death in 1632 because of the regalia. You might believe in the fairy tale of post-mortem creation or altering of Anna's image. I do not and am off now. Best, --Achim (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Our purpose here is not to act on what we users believe or not believe, whether or not we call those beliefs "fairy tales". Our purpose here is to act upon what reliable sources believe. Several reliable sources believe that the portrait is of Anna. Not one reliable source, as far as I know, asserts that the portrait is not of her. One museum has chosen not to identify it. That's all we have.
I have never seen an administrator on any Wikimedia project behave like you. Still amazed and a bit shocked. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

User talk:2408:8214:1C00:9809:2410:F7C0:82CB:ED09

This user is tampering with file description pages. The person has already been warned and still continues. Castillo blanco (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days. Yann (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

JuliaMankovskaya

Uploading similar files. Should some of their uploads be deleted? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

צלם חובב

Continues copyvios after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Omid ahmadyani

Continues copyvios after block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Uploads nuked Gbawden (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Phil367 is harassing me

See this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by 1989 Gbawden (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Erickferreiro

Continues copyvios after warnings. Seby1541 (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done One week blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Martin4272020

Escape block by Martin4272019 (talk · contribs), same uploads. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done All nuked. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

GrizzlyStan

Hi, Could someone indef GrizzlyStan as they're uploading copyvios, According to this they've got 5 deleted edits and 0 live edits - I would assume the 5 deleted edits would be copyvio image uploads,
They were warned in 2017 to stop[10] but have carried on regardless,
Thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 01:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned him. No other action is needed at moment. Taivo (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yuraily Lic

Yuraily Lic (talk · contribs)

New user: two weeks, two thousand edits (!), and they're all deletion requests regarding Japan and copyright claims. Their understanding of copyright isn't as good as they think and there are major flaws in many of these nominations. As well as nominating for deletion, they're also tagging other editors with warning box threats of blocking: User_talk:Manami#Copyright_violations

This is not good editing and it needs some more eyeballs over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously. Deletion requests are contributions to Wikimedia Commons. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
They're only positive contributions if they're accurate and appropriate deletion requests. Otherwise they're a massive time-sink for other editors to deal with.
Also Commons relies on the efforts of many contributors here. Threatening them with blocks (which you have no power to implement) on inaccurate grounds are not a good contribution to that. Clearly you are lacking in any respect for anyone else here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Deletion requests to copyvio files are legitimate contributions to Wikimedia Commons. No problems. Why do you see them as problems ? Do you want to keep copyvio files in Commons? --Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Filing DRs is not in itself a problem. However, I find a new user accumulating a thousand edits a week, entirely filing DRs, to be rather suspicious. Your attitude is also unacceptable - threatening blocks for what appear to be unintentional copyvios is not appropriate. You also have chosen to respond in a hostile manner to legitimate criticism of your DRs, and of entirely justified questions about your intentions. I strongly suggest that you move away from DRs for the time being and find other ways to contribute to Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Administrators, please warn users who uploaded copyvio files. If there are no copyvio files in Wikimedia Commons, I will not submit DRs. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
This isn't about the behaviour of uploaders, it's about your behaviour. You are bulk listing DRs, and they're not adequately accurate DRs, thus disruptive in themselves. You have ignored all comment since and you have not responded to any challenge of your DRs. Even during this, you're still bulk-listing DRs and they're still no more accurate. This needs to stop: either by your action, or by a block. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
"Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously." As this sentence, I think admins should strict measures to users uploaded copyright violation files. But, my thought and admin's thoughts do not seem to match. Com:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#CEFICEFI --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

About User_talk:Yuraily_Lic#FoP_in_Japan.

Andy Dingley, Do you mean that "No FOP in Japan" is not appropriate as a reason for DR? “No FoP in Japan” is a term used in DRs. And, administrators understand them. Please see, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ERENGELION_VS_Woman-type_Giant_at_Universal_Studios_Japan.jpg.

In addition, "no fop in the us" is also used. Please see, Commons:Deletion requests/File:KI Dinosaur.jpg. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

And, I linked to FoP in Japan in DRs. So, administrators and users can understand about "No FOP in Japan" by reading it. Please see, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Peace Statue (Nagasaki). --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course Japan has FoP, you are even linking to our page on the topic. It's not a particularly free access to such content and rarely of use at Commons, but that is not the same as making a false statement that there is, "No FoP in Japan". Just how many times do you expect me to have to point this out to you?
Please do not continue to create huge numbers of deletion requests based on an obviously false statement.
"No FoP in Japan" is not a valid reason for a DR. It is a problem with your DRs, it is a problem with those other DRs too. But we aren't talking about those. If you want to question those, start a thread on it.
A reason of "There is no FoP for this image in Japan" would be better and it would be far better to state "This image cannot have a free licence for commercial use under the restrictive Japanese FoP, so is not freely licensed as would be needed for Commons." But Japan does have FoP, and it has a more free FoP than some countries. In particular, buildings will often be free in Japan but not in some others.
You are also misapplying COM:PACKAGING, ignoring COM:TOO and especially COM:TOYS, where Japan is more free than most countries. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, is it OK this reason for a DR? Com:Deletion requests/File:Yujiro - panoramio.jpg --Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Not really. You seem to have not read, or not understood, a word here. See [11] for the detail of the problem.
"(iv) reproduction of an artistic work exclusively for the purpose of selling its copies and sale of such copies." is forbidden under Japanese law, but permitted for Commons content.
We even have a template already that is clearer than this. {{NoFoP-Japan}} Andy Dingley (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: , "No FoP in Japan" is a short phrase. But, I always linked to FoP in Japan. The linked page contains OK cases, Not OK cases, and Japanese copyright law. Is this not enough? If you think it is not enough, you'd better suggest additional writing to make FoP in Japan sufficient. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
To administrators. Is "No FoP in Japan" (linked to FoP in Japan) not appropriate as a reason for deletion request? In the past, this term was used and accepted in DRs.
I want opinions and advice from administrators. (Please in simple English.) --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

My DR which submitted the reason as "No FoP in Japan" (linked to FoP in Japan) was accepted, and the files were deleted by Taivo.

This concludes the discussion on whether "No FoP in Japan" is sufficient. Thank you, everyone. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


@Andy Dingley: this user also does not make good answers when we ask him, he only do a copy/paste of sentences which are on his user page. It is important to communicate, but with him we cannot, his english level is very bad. --Cody escadron delta (d) 06:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
So what's to be done? There seem to be no admins interested, and he's continuing to file these DRs. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you please name a DR which was created without a valid reason? I checked the last ones created today, and they have at least a plausible reason for deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe see my replies at [12]
These are all DRs for a "good" reason. But they're also extremely simplistic and show no evidence of any understanding or depth of thought for what's a complex topic. They consist of "No FoP in Japan" (which is untrue) or "COM:DW" or "COM:PACKAGING", but those aren't good enough. There are exceptions and constraints to these, and those aren't being looked at. Yuraily Lic appears to be working though on the basis that "All costumes in Japan are deletable under COM:DW" or "Any photograph involving any visible product falls under COM:PACKAGING".
These are only a handful, I haven't got time to even read all of them, but these are just some where the central theme of the DR is "correct", but nothing beyond that seems to have been considered. Copyright is complex and there seems to be none of the necessary skill being applied to these. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Some of these may be kept, but they are not abusive DRs IMO. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No-one has described them as "abusive", although it's a term I'm certainly considering, as they keep appearing. A smarter editor would at least stop with further nominations during this process.
What do you reckon to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Menu bord van het café “Mother Leaf Tea Style” in Joinus Yokohama, -19 maart 2016.jpg ? Is Yuraily Lic's judgement for "derivative works" reasonable here, or is this example (as I would claim, and COM:DM practically gives as an example) too trivial? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I've taken the liberty of uploading a version with blurred COM:DWs to eliminate that problem, and also fixed the perspective. Should be OK now. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The old version is not OK for us, but the new version is. I closed the DR, and hid the old version. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons has a policy "Precautionary principle". If you think about those images as COM:TOO or COM:DM, but copyright owners may not think so. Administrators would have made judgments while also considering precautionary principle. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That is not how Commons works (or at least shouldn't work). We work by consensus at DRs, not by one admin applying a supervote.
Also the "precautionary principle" was abandoned on Commons when Commons continued hosting the monkey selfie. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yuraily Lic requested Commons delete a random assortment of public notices created by local government entities. Public notices are not eligible for copyright in Japan. Considering the age of Yuraily Lic's account, the number of deletion requests in a short timeframe, and the "Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing" non sequitur canned response, they might need a warning and advice on how to contribute to Commons in a positive way. The user is probably contributing in good faith, but just glancing at their talk page, the current behavior is confusing at best, but comes off as antagonistic. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
None of User:Andy Dingley's accusations bear merit. So far Yuraily Lic's DRs were filed for quite reasonable challenges. Most should be deleted accordingly. If anyone thinks it is a sock, go check users, but evidence of wrongdoing is lacking. This is the second time in a month Andy Dingley makes groundless accusations against users he disagrees with. This should stop.--Roy17 (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Grudge much? and have you stopped running that unauthorised 'bot yet? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, yes. Clearly you are holding a grudge: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Minecraft creeper Andy Dingley (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
And doubling down on it: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Andy_Dingley Andy Dingley (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Yuraily Lic started operating [13] on July 27th, 2019. The user predominantly uses VFC mass delete requests and now has 3731 [14] edits under their belt in less than a month, starting to delete content with VFC on their very first day [15]. Of 2019 users who have more page changes than Yuraily Lic in their first month (of which there are 7 [16]), two are sock puppets, three are bots, one was a dev uploading a ton of new content from Cleveland Museum of Art, and one has a robust edit history of respectful interactions. --Elephanthunter (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Maryland Route 97 in Montgomery County and U.S. Route 29 in Montgomery County, Maryland

One editor has made 4 reversions to the former category, and 3 reverts to the latter, within less than an hour's period, all regarding the addition of the category Things named after Georgia (U.S. state), for both.

The editor then left the following on my talk page:

You do it
You're the one with the hangup about it being named after Georgia, even though most isn't, so why don't YOU do it. I'm not wasting my time on it, except to continue reverting your categorization mistakes.

diff=363164024

This comment makes it clear to me that I can no longer assume good faith and take the message for what it is: an open declaration by the editor to continue to engage in edit warring. I would be appreciative of any feedback, assistance, and/or advice which could provided. Dcflyer (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Fourth revert to U.S. Route 29 in Montgomery County, Maryland Dcflyer (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I fully protected both categories for a month to avoid edit warring. In my opinion Famartin is right and neither of the categories is a thing named after Georgia. But Famartin was impolite and impoliteness should be admonished. Taivo (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Jcb & Evrik

Jcb (talk · contribs) has blocked Evrik (talk · contribs) for a week over turning redirects into disambiguations. I think a block was excessive. I'm not going to unilaterally undo another admin's block, but I'd like some other admins to look in and see whether we can get a consensus one way or the other. See User_talk:Evrik#You_have_been_blocked_for_a_duration_of_1_week_2. - Jmabel ! talk 03:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I think by now we all know how this is going to play out… @Jmabel: is it useful to restrict the dicussion of this matter to admins? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • We have had many discussions in the past because some users wanted to create disambiguation pages in the wrong namespace. In all those discussions it was made clear that this is Commons, not Wikipedia, and that in Commons all disambiguation pages are in Category namespace, not in Gallery namespace. Evrik is well aware of these discussions. He has been blocked previously over this and was unblocked after they promised to discontinue the behaviour. When they created three disambiguation pages yesterday in Gallery namespace again, they were well aware that this would lead to a block. Now they have what they were looking for. The block is nowhere excessive! They knew they should expect a very long block if they would continue the behaviour, so the one week block is actually very mild. Jcb (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Old discussion e.g. here and here. There must be about a dozen more, all with one or two users (Crouch and/or Evrik) wanting to create disambituation pages in Gallery namespace and nobody else agreeing. Jcb (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Mp077

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Dispite the message, the account was not blocked. Now 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

103.255.7.39

Removing deletion templates and accuses others of vandalism. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Needs a warning first. Consider one given. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Reporting Patrick Rogel

This editor is edit warring on File:Singer Mujeeb Alam 1958.jpg and despite of the evidence given, placing deletion template again and again. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.255.6.91 (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done It's the uploader's responsibility to provide evidence that this file can be legally hosted here, and Patrick Roget is completely within his rights to insist on this. I suggest you go away and find that evidence before you are blocked for edit-warring. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley

Andy Dingley (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Groundless accusations against Yuraily Lic

Let's take a look at his most recent comments on Yuraily Lic's DRs. All but one of the following examples are related to Japanese copyright COM:CRT/Japan.

  1. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Magazines of Japan
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Suntory products
  3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:NagaokaStation MottoyokusuruPurojekuto.jpg
  4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reduceshoppingbag.JPG
  5. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nagasaki Airport Omura Nagasaki pref Japan29n.jpg
  6. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:City limit signs in Japan

None of these shows any understanding of copyright. It seems that in this user's mind, photographing a magazine is OK; photographing a poster (in Japan where only buildings can be exploited by photos) is OK; photographing an artistic exhibit is OK; an elaborate drawing is below TOO; the drawing taking up almost half the screen is de minimis.

None of these is worth any attention or refuting. It's fine if he keeps it to the DRs, I am confident enough sensible users work on Commons, but the problem is, he used these to accuse Yuraily Lic of wrongdoing, kept repeating it, and as he often does started attacking users.--Roy17 (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Groundless accusations against me

Less than a month ago he had just done that. Now he did it again.

  1. Called my different opinion as "grudge": special:diff/363127932
  2. Attacking me as his sole rationale to keep suspected copyvios: special:diff/363146475
  3. "sheer bad-faith nomination to harrass another Commons editor, not an honest DR": special:diff/363147053--Roy17 (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


I urge @Andy Dingley: to redact his personal attacks and stop assuming bad faith and attacking other users. If he continues, sysops please consider a block.--Roy17 (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the complaint, but I don't think many administrators take anything serious from what is uttered by this user. This behaviour has been going on for a while. Simply ignoring their weird comments to DRs might be the most pragmatic approach. Jcb (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Миодраг Крагуљ

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Other users fixed the formatting and I closed the requests. After start of the discussion the wrong formatting has stopped. so nothing needs to be done at moment. Taivo (talk) 14:54, 27 August 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:Wmpearl breaking Deletion Requests

Deletion requests transcludes the various subpages, so using section headers can cause problem on the transcluded pages. User:Wmpearl used section headers in his reply to a DR, so I fixed them in my reply and pointed out that they weren't helpful. As you can see from Commons:Deletion requests/2019/08/20, he responded by using section headers and breaking DR again. I'm not interested in fixing it again; can someone else talk to this user?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: I swapped the section headers with :{{vk}}. I'll leaving the talking out, heh. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, I find the barnstar on his userpage dubious. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes and 大诺史: Which DR? The barnstar is from this edit on enwiki.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Eustress's account was created in 2009 but the edit was in 2008. So it's kind of weird. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
DR's are
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mujer con flores by Alfredo Ramos Martínez, c 1932.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mt. San Jacinto, California by William Alexander Griffith, circa 1920s.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mt. McKinley by Sydney Laurence.JPG
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Indian Portrait by Ralph Waldo Emerson Meyers.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Indian Chief by George Benjamin Luks.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:'Mountain Cabin' by George Luks, 1928.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mars as Seen from Deimos by Howard Russell Butler.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maritime Alps, Vence, No. 9 by Marsden Hartley.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Misty Morning by Alexander Harrison.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mesas in Shadow by Maynard Dixon, 1926.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:'Autumn Afternoon' by Ernest Albert.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:'At Voorburg, Holland' by Charles Paul Gruppé.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:'Across the Harbor, Provincetown' by Harry Aiken Vincent.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:'A Pineapple' by William Glackens, oil on canvas.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:La Malinche (Young Girl of Yalala, Oaxaca) by Alfredo Ramos Martínez.jpg
大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@大诺史: Eustress's account on enwiki was created November 10, 2007 2:49:19 AM (but their user creation log entry is missing), and their first currently visible edit was 23:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC) per this log entry. Also, please note that SUL account creation ≠ enwiki account creation ≠ Commons account creation.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Oh, alright. Thanks for letting me know! 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@大诺史: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:08, 26 August 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.

Than Zaw Nuac

Abuse of multiple accounts to upload same OOS stuff as Say Thu Htet (talk · contribs). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed as a sock. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Skh sourav halder

Uploads are either copyvios or OOS files that seems to be used for self-promo. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Done — Blocked for a week. Files will be deleted ASAP. Thank you, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 12:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

ܦܝܘܢܐ

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Goumi90

Few blocks but a long history of problematic uploads with "exotic" permissions: this time it's a fake OTRS permission. Since this user can't be trusted I request undef block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Agreed. I also warned this user last month that next violation should lead to indefinite block. File deleted. Yann (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

PrinceAnand2003

Reuploads already deleted files which are all copyvios. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a week. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 16:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The Neoplan Rider Studios

Copyvios after block. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a month. Next block will be indefinite. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 05:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Félix26882

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a month. Next block will be indefinite. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Problematic user - Patrick Rogel

Being a WIR or a GLAM does not give your files a special status and does not exclude them from our established processes. There is no point in complaining about our maintenance volunteers when they annoyed your WIR while just doing their job. Jcb (talk) 20:03, 28 August 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.

Hello everyone, I am contacting you in the name of Wikimedia Serbia, because we really need your help. Wikimedia Serbia is facing difficulties within our Wikipedian in Residence (WIR) project. And the worst part is - this is not caused by some of the GLAM institutions, but by the user Patrick Rogel. This editor is constantly causing harm to WMRS' projects and obstructing our Wikipedians in Residence. Let me explain: Wikimedia Serbia now has a really good cooperation with GLAM institutions in Serbia. WIR programs (Category:Wikipedians in Residence in Serbia) are supported by the Serbian Ministry of Culture and Information. Volunteers who are working at the institutions are uploading released photos with OTRS pending template. During their WIR program, they collect permissions that are being sent to the OTRS. It'a a standard procedure and we've never left photos without permission. But, Patrick is constantly marking those files with delete requests before the permissions arrive. We have tried to explain to him, but he doesn't want to listen. Can someone please help us? --IvanaMadzarevic (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@IvanaMadzarevic: Do you have examples? Patrick Rogel is an experienced contributor, so you can't make wild accusations without providing evidence. Did you try to talk to him first? Looking at your contributions, you didn't. In addition, you must inform him if you publish anything here about him. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@IvanaMadzarevic: Do you ensure that you add {{subst:OP}} to each such file upon upload per OTRS?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

ː@Yann: and @Jeff G.: thank you for your answers. Yes, I have examples. I haven't talked to Patrick directly, but my colleagues did and I was advising them (example 1, example 2, example 3). Here's one of the examples where you can see deletion request and the file don't need OTRS permission because it's public domain (we do have a ticket confirming this is PD at #2019071810005351). OTRS admins can confirm that they have been regularly adding OTRS tickets @Dungodung: , @Miljan Simonović: . We ensure you that our WIRs are added {{subst:OP}}. I have no problem pinging @Patrick Rogel: He doesn't acknowledge our OTRS pending template. --IvanaMadzarevic (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Please read User talk:ShadowBrood84 for the complete discussion regarding example 2. Concerning example 3 a reply had been sent. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC) P.S. May requester explain precisely what are these "difficulties"? I can guess it all began with files from Serbian National Theatre uploaded by @Корак по корак: I began to tag them with "no source" (because there was no link) along with Tim commons and Secondarywaltz (because of found elsewhere on the Internet). Some of them have been deleted by Administrators; some other DRs are pending so it's wrong to say that all have OTRS permissions. In a matter of fact I don't know who @IvanaMadzarevic: and what are her relations with WIR and GLAM (it seems they are none) since intern on WIR in Serbian National Theatre is Jelena Latov-Papic. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in, but I think the section title covers my request as well. Maybe someone can take a look at this page. My wish for the original deletion request page creator (Patrick Rogel) to do it has so far been fruitless. My communication attempt here just seems to have drowned among all the other open requests at his discussion page. All the best. :-)--Paracel63 (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: may also be warranted. Sorry for missing to do it.--Paracel63 (talk) 18:32, 28 August 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-Eric Langevin

Almost 80 vintage images deleted so far related to the en:Langevin family (user is not allowed anymore to contribute to this matter). Extensive discussions with him fails and he's still unable to modify the files descriptions with 1. the actual date of shooting, 2. the name of the potographer, 3. the reason how he becames copyright holder. Tries now to evade the issue with exotic and wrong arguments. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Patrick Rogel: , vous auriez pu m'en parler directement, plutôt que de me mentionner ici. Je ne cherche pas à échapper au problème avec de faux arguments. Je veux connaître la législation exacte pour ces questions, en tant qu'ayant-droit de la famille. Peut-être avez-vous raison, et je n'aurais pas le droit de diffuser des photos de famille. Mais il est possible que ce soit l'inverse, et que je sois tout à fait dans mon bon droit en diffusant mon patrimoine familial et culturel. Cordialement, Paul-Eric Langevin 16:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Chaosdragon50YY

Will someone who is not in a public place take a look at this user's contributions. (NSFW) GMGtalk 13:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I tagged one file as speedy because I did a search on Instagram and the subject appears to be under 18 years of age. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@大诺史: Will you please take whatever evidence it is that you found and forward it to legal-reports@wikimedia.org. GMGtalk 15:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: alright, give me a moment. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: done. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it. GMGtalk 15:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: 1989 deleted the uploads of the user already. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Ozaki baka

In the last few weeks, the user has uploaded dozens upon dozens of copyright violations, most of which are currently nominated for deletion. Could someone send a warning? Thanks, 153.203.107.76 11:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Bnc2001

Bnc2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Looks to be uploading much the same photos that were just deleted a couple weeks ago at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bnc2001. Besides being problematic apparent excerpts from video games, the gibberish file names and descriptions suggest vandalism. Does not appear to be here to contribute productively. No activity on any other project. GMGtalk 14:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Doesn't appear to have taken the warning to heart. GMGtalk 15:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Yann (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Artinpl again

Referring back to this, I am frankly tired of being called a "stalker" time and again by this user.

Would someone please communicate with the user about personal attacks? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The user is frustrated over the image deletions. I cannot see an admin blocking the user for telling you to delete yourself then being called a stalker. Overreaction. Just leave a talk page notice and move on.--BevinKacon (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I am not able to communicate cnstructively with this user despite several attempts to do so. The user needs to hear from an administrator. And I have not requested any block, just guidance - away from habitual personal attacks. If frustration warrants repeated "stalker" accusations, I am at a loss to comprehend policy. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 Comment There is no reason for speedy deletion here. But it doesn't absolve anyone for proper behaviour. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I am feeling stalked for over a month, there's absolutely no apparent reason why any of my work should be considered as copyvio and to remove my edits. Can you please keep the file in question or delete it in order to not give feed for any further escalations by this user?Artinpl (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I too have felt stalked at times in Commons & Wikipedia work. Some users just make us feel that way. It has not been my intention at all in this case. I only wanted to make sure that things are being done according to our guidelines, since I've seen examples where that was not being done OK by this user.
There is a big difference between feeling stalked and repeatedly calling another user a stalker. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
PS No image should ever be deleted only "to not give feed for any further escalations by [a] user". This image should be deleted because it is (1) under copyright to the uploader and (2) not properly licensed and (3) is without value as unidentified and (4) probably will never be able to be reliably identified and (5) is of very poor quality. Not a winning combination. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
PS2 Is this the right place to discuss the deletion? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Deletion should be discussed in the DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I do not wish to engage in further quarrels. Can I ask someone reasonable to have a look into this and end it? Please delete this file if this will solve it. Artinpl (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I discussed deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anonymous Lady with eagle pendant.jpg and warned the subject user.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

BBasilio2001

I believe enough warnings have been given for copyvios. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 07:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay. ✓ Blocked for a week. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 07:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Cakeboss90s

Continues copyvios after 2 warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

All uploads seem to be taken off FB, violating their terms of use. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for 2 weeks, and all files deleted. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 15:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Faruk danyaya

Everything is copyvio, fake EXIFs on their latest upload. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a month. Next block will be indefinite. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 15:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Ragazzodeitalia

Abuse of multiple accounts. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Two different people confused about being invited to contribute and after working for hours files "speedy deleted" with no reason. Ragazzo have asked me for help because cannot understand why his "contributions" have been deleted. Now, same is happening to me without no reason. I am using files that have no copyrights, they are almost 50 years old, some of them belong exclusive to me, and copies of magazines are from editorials that are out of business and are from the time when internet did not exist so there are no link to them available nowhere. Why to delete? As seen in Wikipedia: "This image is in the public domain because the copyright of this photograph, registered in Argentina, has expired. (Both at least 25 years have passed after the photograph was created, and it was first published at least 20 years ago, Law 11.723, Article 34 as amended, and Berne Convention Article 7"- I do not believe none of them should be deleted. Thank you. Alfredomaraw (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
You can request undeletion on COM:UDR, but obviously only images first published in Argentina can be uploaded with {{PD-AR-Photo}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I've added Ragazzoitaliano25 (talk · contribs), but it might be a good idea to have a checkuser take a look. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ragazzoitaliano25. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

แสงทองส่องหล้า

Appear to have evade blocks placed on จันทร์ธาดา (talk · contribs) and continue the behavior of uploading files without permission (apparently do not understand the concept of "gratis v. libre"). According to this edit at Thai Wikipedia, the file File:KingramaX and Queen Suthida.jpg was uploaded by แสงทองส่องหล้า but inserted into the page by จันทร์ธาดา. Sockpuppet investigation at Thai Wikipedia confirmed จันทร์ธาดา to be related to ดาวประกายพรึก and พุ่มข้าวบิณฑ์ (as reported in Archive 78), with จันทร์ธาดา as the sock master. --G(x) (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user indefinitely and deleted all his/her contributions as copyright violations. Taivo (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Ale1054

Continues copyvios after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days Gbawden (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Yoger Osorio.

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days. Uploads deleted Gbawden (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock

Uploading same content, Matthew Yap, Matthias Yap and Marcus Yap, which are from other sources. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Elcobbola blocked them all indefinitely, all uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sid54126

Continues copyvios (already deleted images apparently) despite previous block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months and uploads deleted Gbawden (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Irisvalverde1

Continues copyvio despite block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

LizzyBhope

Repeatedly uploading copyright violations since 2010. 124.84.243.24 12:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 week --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Lbrad75344

I believe that enough warnings have been given about uploading fair use content. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for 3 days. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 05:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Path9595

Possibly reuploading files from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Path9595. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 02:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Warned for now. Thank you! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 04:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tulsi Bhagat: User reuploaded File:สูตรรักพลิกล็อค.jpg for the third time. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Blocked for 2 weeks. Thank you for the notification! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 13:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Commercial use of my photos from Wiki

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Samirzahirovic&ilshowall=1

I want to change all my photos to "non commercial use"

Otherwise i want to delete my account and all my photos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samirzahirovic (talk • contribs) 19:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Not really possible, I'm afraid. The point is that once you grant such a licence they're irrevocable. You can't "undo" them. Otherwise it would be impossible for anyone to use Commons at all, if this risk of revocation was always hanging over them in the future.
That said, just nominate them for deletion. There are plenty of admins who don't understand licensing on Commons and will delete them anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done all kept, Andy! ;-) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Photo added

I added a photo to Collier Heights. The photo was created by myself from photos that are in the public domain. Additonally, I personally know each and every person (or the estate representative, and spoke with them regarding the use of the person's likeness. Additionally, the use of their likeness if both factual and in no was derogatory. Im not sure why it is that EVERYTIME I post or correct soemthing it is deleted. Its as if someone has a problem with me personally. PLEASE HELP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antavius (talk • contribs) 02:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Comment For collages source and license of every used image is needed. These are all modern photos, mostly previously not published and created by different photographers, so OTRS-permission from everyone of them is needed. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Pierre cb

Pierre renamed the file File:Dorian.jpg, which is a file under DR. The renaming process violate COM:FR. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe only files with copyright problems shouldn't be renamed. Current DR is about superseded version of the said file. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 10:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Pierre followed COM:FR. No action required. Bidgee (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
My renaming hasn't changed the status of the DR demands for that photo but I am sorry if I caused a problem to A1Cafel in this case. I just renamed the image for a more descriptive name, as stated in COM:FR. I will avoid photos under DR in the future. Pierre cb (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
This is no reason for deletion in the first place... Yann (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Duck

Uploading same files. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 17:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked the first one, which seems more recent. Second account warned. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

User:FossickPictures

This account has spammed a number of Commons photographers offering to act as an agent pursuing copyright claims against commercial users. The sender claims to have uploaded lots of photos to Wikipedia under CC licence, though the account here has no edits (on any project) or uploads. This account appears to be here solely to engage in SPAM advertising. Also per Commons:Username policy, the account using a company name as username would need to be verified. -- Colin (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked. --A.Savin 08:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Aman Fong

I believe that enough warnings have been given about uploading OOS files for self promo. Even if he is notable, majority of the files are wrongly claimed as own work. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by Jcb for a week Gbawden (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

IzabellaKoun

All uploads seem to have the same Facebook source and Facebook is not a valid source. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done I have warned them and deleted their uploads. This is a new account, created this week. Lets see if they persist Gbawden (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

A.dani

Continues copyvio out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Nguyenbaotrinh2014

Please block Nguyenbaotrinh2014 for repeat copyright violation uploads despite final warning. User never interacted with anyone here. Thank you. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Final warning given, uploads deleted. Next time a block is warranted Gbawden (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Same person?

Above users edited the same page on kn.wiki (kn:ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ:ಯೋಜನೆ/ಸಂತ ಅಲೋಶಿಯಸ್ ಕಾಲೇಜು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಅಸೋಸಿಯೇಶನ್ ೨೦೧೯-೨೦) and appears to be interested in Aloysius Gonzaga. All, except Moideen, uploaded historical images of Aloysius Gonzaga but claims as own work (which is impossible). Any comments, admins? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Linked page translated to English: "The Wikipedia Association of Saint Aloysius College is starting this year. This page is made for practice on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia Student Association is the concept of the Coastal Wikimedians User Group. Some basic outlines of the project they prepared can be read on this page. Saint Aloysius College Wikipedia Association is working in collaboration and mentoring of coastal Wikimedians." Probably not the same person. Not sure about all the images. For File:SAINT_GONZAGA.jpg the author doesn't seem to match, but the date for File:FullSizeakoysius.jpg matches and seems legit. Might just be an innocent project. -- Elephanthunter (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Rasta sesh nei

Escape block by Sayan Garai 94 (talk · contribs), same uploads related to Locket Chatterjee. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: Reported at m:srg#Global lock for Rasta sesh nei, another sock of Sayangarai32 for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Sidrao21

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Really everything was copyvio. I blocked him/her for a month. Taivo (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Vinci84

In conjunction with (most likely a sockpuppet account) Julyaaana (talk · contribs), randomly reverting files to older inferior revisions without explanation. These edits were reverted by me, and they reverted it back, again without explanation. They were warned by me and @Jeff G.: on their talk page to cease and desist this disruptive behavior, but they have not responded and have continued despite it. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked Julyaaana indef. for socking, and Vinci84 for a week for overwriting files after warning. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 11:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Poddiya

Continues copyvios despite warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him/her for a week. All uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

C raju kumar

Continues OOS uploads just out of block, no useful edit. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

That was their second block for it. I indef'ed, and cleaned up at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by C raju kumar. DMacks (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Basile Morin

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Basile Morin has his own ideas about how threads should be indented and how the timeline in discussions should be maintained. This has been a problem for a while. (I also got a dose of this.) This was brought up earlier by Colin in a discussion at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1016#Disruption, started by Baslie himself. After that Basile went on to start a discussion at en:Wikipedia talk:Indentation#Proposal Avoid multiple indentations and Avoid interference to get a passage in the guidelines in favor of how he wants threads to be. Now he has taken this a step further in that he has rearranged a discussion in a way he thinks is best, not the way/order the participants wrote their comments in: [17] and forward.
Is there a way to keep Basile from "fixing" and moving other users comments? --Cart (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Full nonsense. Indentation was wrong and thus fixed per en:Wikipedia:THREAD and en:Wikipedia:INDENT: "If you want to reply to a comment, but another editor has already done so, just position your own text beneath that other editor's reply, at the same indentation level" (rule #2).
Here's the problem: Please check Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A dip in the road in Färlev.jpg and check the history. Similar problem with another nomination by W.carter : Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Forgotten pacifier on a table in Röe_gård_cafe.jpg -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 Disagree The correction W.carter links is wrong and suggests I made a mistake in the correction. But this edit was reverted by me less than 1 minute after, and then the correct correction (excuse the redundancy) legitimately done here -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Also check the whole discussion W.carter refers to -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
And now Basile has gone and removed/reverted the link I placed to this discussion, editing within my own edit. Another thing he didn't like so he just removed it. --Cart (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Check the chronology. It's important here -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is long past the time that Basile Morin should be topic banned from editing other people's comments, and particularly for moving them about and changing indentation. His limited experience on Wiki with discussion forums (i.e. none outside of FPC) and over simplistic interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines (i.e. thinking they are comprehensive in every style of writing) has led him towards a view that experience wiki folk are formatting their discussions wrongly. He tried to change the Wikipedia guidelines to suit his style at en:Wikipedia talk:Indentation#Proposal Avoid multiple indentations and Avoid interference and was basically laughed at by all the experienced folk there. The indentation style he hates so much is common and causes no problems. Editing other people's posts is rude, disruptive. As noted on Wikipedia, it seems Basile is more concerned with the chronology of posts than the flow of a discussion, which on Wiki does not necessary proceed chronologically. -- Colin (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Basile Morin to be topic banned from editing other editors comments, moving their posts and changing their indentation levels.

 Support -- Colin (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

W.carter

Really not a clever report by W.carter. The problem is mainly on her side. Pity -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually this link, placed to resume the whole discussion, which clearly doesn't deal with the subject, is disruption -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Just one more unfounded complaint W.carter does in COM:ANU (like this one). Time wasted -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Info The two links to Wikipedia inserted by W.carter on the top of this section aim to disqualify me from the beginning. But check the facts. First, all the pages I've created in Wikipedia English are here, kept by the community. My edits are also appreciated, I often receive thanks from other users. Then, be aware I'm not fluent in English (language level indicated on my personal page = 2). It's more difficult to express in writing in another languages. Also check the discussions, especially the second one. The first one was closed too early before I had time to read the answers (check the timestamps). On the other one, no common understanding was reached, the discussion was canvassed, and many users (including W.carter) disrupted the thread like now, in violation of Wikipedia:Civility. But that's not really the matter here, on Commons. W.carter is wrong and the community might be conscious of it. Read the guidelines: "the use of normal indentation is a behavioural guideline that editors are expected to follow. Such guidelines may be enforced by administrative action, especially when other editors have been unable to persuade an individual to abide by them. The guideline should never be used to bite newcomers who don't know how to indent properly, but experienced users are expected to comply with it, to facilitate threaded discussion on talk pages." -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Comment User W.carter also pinged User:Colin probably on purpose, because she knows the discussions between Colin and me are extremely inflammatory. Is Colin an admin? Fortunately no. (I'd really prefer to avoid any further conflict with this person, but links may come if necessary, that will certainly bring more tensions here). I could also call friends, but I won't. See Wikipedia:Canvassing. I'm very confident with the outcome here. But this unpleasant report should be closed. There's ✓ no problem, except from the other side. We've probably all get work to do at home, and I do not appreciate being disturbed that way. Greetings. -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's my edit. Not a single letter was changed in others' comments. I mind the hierarchy but never change the meaning of what is said, because I 100% respect what others think and write. The content of the contributions belongs to the editors, but the format is ours, shared in common. And this is not acceptable to steal the place and alter the chronology. Note that I support Peulle's review and vote, nevertheless the format was not ok here, and this might have been a benign error of inattention by him, or just a forgivable unawareness of the guidelines, no worry, my summary was very clear, so that everything understand the fair change. This kind of edits is also not possible, because it alters the meaning of my previous answer. When I write "We collapse all the out-of-topic discussions here...", this is not a response to W.carter boring invitation to COM:ANU, but a response to that exact comment. Don't change the history. We value truth. And fixing such issues, per the official guidelines, help to keep the content clear and readable for all. One alert on the user's TP is enough, W.carter doesn't need to spam us with wrong assumptions, in order to influence the votes. -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Cart pinged me as courtesy because I am mentioned, since I have previously tried and failed to persuade Basile from disruptive editing of other's comments. I was also involved at the Wikipedia discussion. I have AN/U on my watchlist, so this was hardly likely to go unnoticed. This section should be collapsed by admin, who will be aware that Basile responds to criticism with personal attacks. See above his threat to bring links concerning me into this discussion, no doubt concerning things that have nothing to do with indentation, but serve merely to paint me as a bad person. The last time he did this, he stalked my posts all the way to French Wikipedia in order to dig up some dirt. If he does this, then imo he should be blocked for personal attacks -- he has done this and been warned about this too many times. I suggest an admin strictly remind Basile to stick to the issue of indentation and persuade us why he should be permitted to reformat other people's posts. -- Colin (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

W.carter

W.carter edit wars: 1, 2, mixing legitimate content and out-of-topic sections. This user is unable to accept critics. She says FPC is hostile but she contributes in making this kind of unpleasant contributions. She also said she would leave FPC and the project, though never really took a break, as far as I know. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

If you are going to quote me, quote me right. I wrote "hostile the FPC is towards artistic photos these days", as in hostility towards artistic/abstract photos. As for continuing on FPC, I was asked by other users on and off Commons to come back to FPC, so I did. --Cart (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually, W.carter said it several times: "I know there are those who share your point of view about me and my odd noms, but I have finally grown tired of being the dancing bear around here. Sometimes I have felt like just crying out "Are you not entertained!?"; so I'll settle for a more normal/quiet life now." -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Quoting Cart: "Why don't you try to think about some outrageous noms yourselves to rock FPC with? That would make me even more happy." I feel that strange -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I hardly think it's a matter for the Admins that I've stopped nominating unusual photos at FPC and now nominate normal things like apples, moths, lambs and landscapes. I'm leaving it to other photographers to shoot new odd/unusual/outrageous things if they like. --Cart (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
W.carter has real difficulties to deal with contrariety. Similar example of degenerated discussion with a similar landscape: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:In Alsbäck by the bus stop.jpg. Instead of focusing on the subject, the problem is the reviewer. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices_for_talk_pages : Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating. -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment This appears to be a revenge post wrt above. Basile is simply making personal attacks to try to paint anyone who complains about his as a bad person. See above. Suggest this section be speedy close else it becomes a dumping ground for personal attack links from Basile. -- Colin (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia:THREAD is a sensible guideline that editors should strive to follow. The occasional deviation from that guideline does not warrant an edit war and a huge AN/U thread. New users can politely be pointed to en:Wikipedia:THREAD, experienced users can be assumed to know what they are doing. @Basile Morin: Stop editing other user's talk page messages against their will. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

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


DISRUPTION BY AN ADMIN

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I find the whole affair here pretty childish. Would you please act like grown-ups, and discuss peacefully your disagreements without an editwar? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

✘[No] I suspect an admin (maybe Savin?) to suppress my report here about W.carter. Disappeared from ANU. Scandalous. STOP -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I merged the sections to have the discussion about one topic in one place. Please respect the decision and stop disrupting AN/U with excessive editing. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

ALERT and important. DO NOT PLACE TEXTS THAT WERE NOT ADDED BY ME IN WRONG SECTIONS, especially in this admin noticeboard. Also protecting the page so that we cannot express ourselves. DANGER.

ALERT. -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

NO FAITH IN ADMINS' ACTIONS. CAUTION. DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT YOU READ. I may not sign my further edits. A large part of the content is not true, signed by me but removed, moved, mixed, etc. -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Basile, why did you remove your second section titled "W.Carter" from the above closed discussion. You have left in place my reply to it "This appears to be a revenge post wrt above..." which now appears without the relevant context. Please can you revert this and leave the section as it was. -- Colin (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

✘[No] -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Well you claimed an admin "suppressed" your report about W.Carter, yet your report was in fact present here until you removed it. So it seems you have suppressed the report yourself. Well done. -- Colin (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

✘[No] Don't trust this thread, neither the previous ones -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see Srittau restored the "W.Carter" section at the same time as I was writing my first query about why you removed it. So your report is back here, though in a closed section. Since you seem now to be complaining about something that is no longer a problem, perhaps you would be good enough to request this section resolved. -- Colin (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Several Copyvios and Multiple accounts by user:संदेश हिवाळे

  1. Copyright violations and using wrong licenses : They have been warned several times for copyvio(Atleast their talk tells 40 files got deleted, admins can dig more into here), they are already blocked on enwiki for breach of topic ban and socking.
  2. Sockpuppetery : Recently, their sock was blocked on enwiki, which is also active here on commons too. More info about SPI here So I am requesting block for both the accounts. thanks QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 16:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I blocked संदेश हिवाळे for a week, and Sandesh Tupsundre indef. Yann (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Abdel Rahman Hany Muhamed

Continues copyvios out of block, removes copyvio templates. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done - Эlcobbola talk 21:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Cold Season

Cold Season (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Cold Season has been nominating Chinese paintings, which are obviously old enough, for speedy and normal deletion.

One extreme example. S/he uploaded File:Seated Portrait of Emperor Song Huizong.tif, so s/he knows what era this came from, but s/he nominated File:Songqinzong Chinghong.jpg, which is similar in style, for deletion.--Roy17 (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

First off, nominating problematic files is literally following Commons:Deletion policy. Your failure to argue for why a file should be kept, is not a user problem on my part. Perhaps you should take some distance.
Secondly, you claim that I know what File:Songqinzong Chinghong.jpg is, but--in fact--I actually do not know what that file is (as I follow sources/references/museum accession numbers/etcetera to identify things). Those are two distinct files depicting two distinct things. --Cold Season (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Cold Season doesnt provide any evidence why any file nominated could be possibly still copyrighted. To remain in copyright, the creator must be still alive in 1946, such that life 50 ends after 1996-01-01. Chinese painters were not drawing these shitty ones after around mid 19th century. Try searching '晚清 畫像' or browsing any art catalogues. Artworks from 19th century onwards had much finer details.--Roy17 (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The burden of proof lies on establishing that the file is free use (this is policy) to keep the files on Commons. You are the one who keeps removing deletion templates from files while not fixing the files (such as here or here).--Cold Season (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Another example of completely pointless DR. S/he says File:Mingyingzong.jpg (This one is also watermarked, which makes it all the more obvious that it is not an own work.) in Commons:Deletion requests/File:King Wan Li.jpg. The painting depictes Category:Zhengtong Emperor, and there are two dupes in Category:Portraits of Zhengtong Emperor! Even if Cold Season doesnt read Chinese, a bit of work of searching in English should quite effortlessly lead him/her to well sourced files and so s/he would not raise such DRs. On the contrary, his/her upload records are full of Chinese artworks, so s/he is not entirely clueless.--Roy17 (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
For the record, File:Qiu_Chuji.jpg was another very bad tagging. Reverse search would find the painting complete with the notation on top, which I just uploaded File:丘處機.jpg. Searching the signature 牟昌裕 would reveal 牟昌裕 lived in 18th century, so the painting could not be later than that. Yet it was deleted as no source, causing massive delinking.--Roy17 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, your failure to convincingly argue why a file should be kept (and/or provide the minimal requirement to keep a file) is not an user problem on my part, as the nominations are in accordance to Commons:Deletion policy. You are literally reporting me here for making deletion nomination discussions, which doesn't even make much sense... You need to be aware that a source or any other relevant information about the file is required and needs to be provided. --Cold Season (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 Not done Nothing to be done here. The burden of proof that a file is not copyright protected is on the uploader of the file. It is problematic to mark such files using {{Own}}. As such at least the source information is false. The deletion request is maybe unnecessary, but certainly not frivolous enough to warrant discussion on AN/U. Please discuss the merits of the DR in the DR itself. Also, please do not remove {{Delete}} templates from files itself, leave that to the closing admin. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Cold Season: you have been uploading Chinese artworks, so you must have some knowledge. With that knowledge, you should be well aware what you are nominating do not come close to being still copyrighted. Copyright is not a problem whether a work has vague or no sources, if it is obviously a work from before 19th century. That you have the knowledge but still raise such pointless DRs is a user problem.
@Srittau: I was just writing something...--Roy17 (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

May be same person

If I'm not wrong, the 2 users uploaded the same file over and over again. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 04:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. Bizzlamichhane007 was blocked for 3 months. You warned Mb12as and after that copyvios have stopped, his/her copyvios are deleted. I think, that at moment the situation does not need more actions. Taivo (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Kyladcarter

I believe enough warnings have been given for copyvios. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 03:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User removed no permission template from File:Kyla Carter.jpg. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week and warned Gbawden (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Attia.hakim

Continues copyvios out of blocks. No useful edit. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed. Two previous blocks should have got the message across. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Carsson Tan

Reuploading deleted content. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week and all uploads nuked Gbawden (talk) 13:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Embu wiki

Reuploading of fair use content after warnings. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Final warning given Gbawden (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

TURRANK

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

GSPassoni20042019

Everything is copyvio. Blocked once. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 month. --Mhhossein talk 03:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Jonathan mercar

Everything is copyvio. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 04:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Final warning given, all uploads deleted Gbawden (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010

User has repeatedly removed useful categorization from files (example 1 [18], [19], …) and even after multiple approaches (latest) refuses to their edit war. --MB-one (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The File:Bus-CE64-Wuppertal-Cronenberg-Rathaus.JPG is actually a borderline case -- the bus is not really prominently shown in the picture (unlike the bus stop sign and the buildings), so actually categories related to the bus are dispensable. Chronical editwar because of this one category (and this since April 2017!!) is unacceptable -- you guys REALLY have no more useful things to do on Commons? Shall I full-protect the file? Both of you @Davey2010 and MB-one: definitely have to decide (via discussion, not editwar), whether the bus is prominent enough for categories. If not, the other bus-related categories (blue buses etc.) should be removed too. If yes, the Citaro category should be added. Additionally, @Davey2010, it is unacceptable to use the rollback button in edit wars. Please do not do it anymore, otherwise I reserve myself the possibility to remove your rollbacker flag without any further warnings. Thanks --A.Savin 07:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Agree w A.Savin. The case is borderline and a >2 years-editwar is unacceptable. Both positions are legitimate, but not compelling. Though on Commons we have no established Third opinion approach, it might help to involve a category-specialist as sort of arbitrator into this case. A word of wisdom: sometimes it helps just to let go.--Túrelio (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010, MB-one, A.Savin, and Túrelio: I would say placing the file into Category:Mercedes-Benz Citaro in Germany‎ or any of its subcats would be ok. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I've repeatedly told the user to gain consensus for their additions but each time have been ignored .... that being said it takes 2 to edit war so I take blame for my part in this,
If anyone has any suggestions as to how I could get a wider audience and consensus I would happily go that route right now,
In all fairness I have no idea how I would go about getting consensus and MB probably doesn't either which would probably explain why this has continued for so long,
Could I just add tho I did add an image note to File:Bus-CE64-Wuppertal-Cronenberg-Rathaus.JPG which I felt was a good compromise so in my defence here I have tried to resolve it amicably,
In regards to the rollback - I gave up using edit summaries because I felt like I was repeating myself but granted that is still no excuse to use it especially when it's not vandalism,
Anyway as I said if anyone has any suggestions as to how I could get a wider audience and consensus I would happily go that route,
Thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 10:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
A.Savin, Túrelio and 大诺史 - Would it be advisable to start an COM:RFC on this ?, I feel an RFC would be excessive however given myself and MB cannot resolve this by ourselves I'm out of ideas on the next best solution. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 22:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Any statement MB-one? Why do you consider a categorization of non-prominently shown vehicles useful? --A.Savin 08:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Indeed this has been going on for years in several cases and for most disputed files, we could find a solution. My argument is basically what A.Savin has layed out above: Either a file should be categorized properly by bus model, or in case the bus is really a negligible object in the frame, it should not be referenced at all. However, in this case, Davey argued, that the bus is not the main subject of the photo, which is clearly wrong. The original file name and description by the author of the photograph are explicitly stating the bus as the main subject of the image. Therefore, it would be ridiculous not to categorize the file accordingly. The user has been made aware of that fact multiple times and still continued to revert. --MB-one (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The uploader/photographer may give the file any name they wish. If the file is called "bus", this doesn't necessarily mean the bus is the central motif. And in this case, it is by no means clear. If you want 3rd opinion, on this photo the bus stop sign and this part of the street is the central motif. --A.Savin 11:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Even not counting the sub-cats, we have 345 images of that type of bus. We don't need to categorize every last image where a bare back corner of one is just poking out from behind a pillar.
MediaWiki categorization is not ordinal or defining. We do not need to record every item visible in every photograph. Categorization here is a navigational feature, so that readers seeking images of a Mercedes-Benz Citaro bus can be guided to finding them. It is not a rare bus and it is a common bus today, thus we collect many images of them. This might be different for a bus from 60-70 years ago where images are scarce. I would support Davey's actions here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi A.Savin, Sorry to bother you but just wondering - As MB-One appears to have ignored this discussion[20] would it be safe to say my edits should stand and that if MB-One still has a problem then they'd need to seek consensus ?,
Not trying to annoy anyone but I'm afraid of this being archived before anything's done or clarified so just wanted to ask, Many thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 15:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Basically I agree with Andy Dingley and I would remove all bus-related categories (not only Citaro) from the file in question. --A.Savin 22:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
A.Savin Okie dokie many thanks for clarifying and for your help with all of this it's much appreciated, I'll remove those once this is closed or archived, Many thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 22:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Fcuk1203

Resolved

Deliberate violation of Commons:Overwriting existing files. The most obvious example is File:CYHS-1.JPG, I reverted to the original version, but he reverted to the previous version and say "學校名稱都變更了，憑什麼回退到舊照". 憑什麼 means "you and what army". To me that is a provocative action. Before I reverted it, I have told him that do not overwrite files that is not his own original upload. See: User_talk:Fcuk1203#You cannot overwrite other user's work as your own work.

The other, much more serious problem is that he has long violated the "OVERWRITE" policy, and even he will overwrite someone else's image. I took the time to check his uploaded images, and found that 20 images violated the policy.--Kai3952 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Persistent breach of COM:OVERWRITE going back years, no communication, abusive edit summaries. No. Indeffed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: this block is bad. The user's latest problematic edit was on 29 August 2018 at File:CYHS-1.JPG. That's a year ago! Have you checked User:Kai3952's report carefully?--Roy17 (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: The problem is that he has "long" violated Commons:Overwriting existing files. Have you forgotten that there was a discussion about his uploaded files at COM:AN two month ago? 20 of the 34 images are in violation of the policy, but you seems to think that the problem is me. Take a look at these files:
I don't think you have checked carefully enough. However, the more important question is: Fcuk1203 may do the same thing again. I have told him about the "OVERWRITE" policy so it's not like he doesn't know the policy is there. If you think Rodhullandemu doesn't need to block him, then he should not object to my reverting his overwriting.--Kai3952 (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: The point of a block is to prevent behaviour harmful to Commons, and this includes breaching our policies, whatever the intention and even with possible difficulties of understanding language. But this user has been reverted and warned on numerous previous occasions, and has failed to stop. If I were on the end of this and didn't understand what was going on, I would ask for help. But this editors hasn't responded to any notices. An indefinite block does not mean an infinite block, and if (s)he shows an understanding of what is permitted here, an unblock is possible. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: this block was applied for socalled problematic overwriting, but the user has not done it since Aug 2018, i.e. the user is not disrupting/vandalising at the time of the block. Simply put, the block is against the blocking policy.
User:Fcuk1203 was reported in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_74#Some_users_from_Taiwan_seem_to_be_unclear_about_"COM:OVERWRITE.". No sysop action was taken at that time.
Kai3952 seems to not understand how to properly handle such matters, as reflected in that report. I translated dont overwrite into Chinese and issued one to Fcuk1203 in June. S/he has not violated overwriting policy since.
@Kai3952: you should not report the same edits repeatedly on AN. Fcuk1203's overwriting in the past has been dealt with in your last report. Only if he did overwrite with substantial changes to the photos again after warning, then you report, instead of bringing up closed cases.--Roy17 (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: What?! You say that Kai3952 is not understand how to properly handle such matters? Your attitude makes me feel that you are not responsible for what you said on AN, because you mean to tell me that the problem is me. When I ask you for help, then you say: "I told you, read COM:OVERWRITE. Have you done that? Have you read 3.1 Minor improvements? Stop asking questions that are answered by what you quote, which you should have read." And now, you correct me that should not bringing up closed cases. I know that you can to properly handle this matter, but you do not need to criticize me in order to win your argument here. In fact, at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard, you didn't tell me yet what I to do, so I can only handle with it using my own ideas. I also told Rodhullandemu(see User talk:Rodhullandemu#Unblocking Fcuk1203) that if you think there is no need to block the user, then I have no opinion on it. Roy17, I honestly hope that you can talk rationally to me, otherwise I won't care what you say. I would watch your attitude. Who do you think you are?!--Kai3952 (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
As of now, User:Fcuk1203 is still blocked. @Rodhullandemu: could you please justify why the user was blocked on 9 Sep 2019, even though s/he had not violated any policy since 30 Aug 2018?--Roy17 (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: Blocks are used to prevent harm being caused to Commons. Fcuk1203 had a clear track record of ignoring policy and failing to communicate, both of which are considered harmful behaviour. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Fcuk1203 was active in the year and made no harmful edits. Why do you think s/he has not stopped after the warnings were given to him/her?--Roy17 (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: Haven't you got anything better to do? If Fcuk1203 wants to be unblocked s/he can ask for it, and it may be granted. Meanwhile, I;ve got other stuff to do. It's Heritage Week and I'm fully booked with real work. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: the question still stands. You said if (s)he shows an understanding of what is permitted here, an unblock is possible. What makes you think that a user who has not broken the rules for a year does not understand his/her past grievances, such that s/he should be blocked indefinitely for the first block s/he receives?--Roy17 (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Amazsara10

copyvios despite warnings. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 10:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week and uploads deleted Gbawden (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Abdo Hany Muhamed

Probable escape block of Abdel Rahman Hany Muhamed (talk · contribs), same uploads related to Tamer Hosny and same removals of deletion templates. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Elcobbola blocked Abdel Rahman Hany Muhamed indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

AndreCollodi

Because I've nominated to deletion some of his files user threats me of a trial and "the contest organizers" as well (I suppose he is refering to Wiki Loves Monuments Italia 2019). May someone (perhaps one Italian-speaking Administrator) try to understand what it's all about because, frankly, I don't get it? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked indefinitely. We do not accept legal threats against other users. Ankry (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
For tracking: the user was warned here. Ankry (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Marathimovie

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him for a month (second block). Taivo (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Миодраг Крагуљ

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

User blocked by Taivo. --Túrelio (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked him for a month (second block) and deleted all his uploads. Taivo (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Zombie gunner

User is constantly removing deletion tags from multiple images. For example, [21], [22],[23] claiming that there is no copyright violation. More diffs are available in the contribution history. They seem to be insistent that there is no copyvio, so I am just letting the admins know here.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)}}

Possibly the same person

Both users uploaded very similar images. File:National martial arts awards 2018.jpg & File:ARAVINDA PRAKASH.jpg. Both uploads do not have metadata and possibly a personal image. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 10:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

RAJESH DHAKA 2

see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by RAJESH DHAKA 2, uploading similar files under different filenames after I sent his files to DR. If the files are his own work, I believe that he would've said something at the DR about the ownership. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Socks canvassing

I am being canvassed by a new user and IP's to participate in and speedy close DR's. They are

But they led me to Commons:Deletion requests/File:ARC.jpg which had some suspicious IP activity

  • 139.5.134.122
  • 116.58.203.92
  • 116.58.203.56
  • 116.58.203.186
  • 43.245.120.61

Do we take any action or just wait and see? Gbawden (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @NahidSultan.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gbawden: "globally blocked" is only for IP Addresses, RoksanaM is "globally locked".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Dunno, but I started Commons:Deletion requests/File:ArcT.jpg anyway. (same uploader as ARC.jpg) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I globally locked the account, it is one of the sock accounts of Crosswiki LTA User:জঙ্গলবাসী. ~ Nahid Talk 13:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Charmi004

Copyvios despite warning. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ blocked 1 week. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Rangel Carregosa

Doesn't understand fair use despite warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Socks canvassing

I am being canvassed by a new user and IP's to participate in and speedy close DR's. They are

But they led me to Commons:Deletion requests/File:ARC.jpg which had some suspicious IP activity

  • 139.5.134.122
  • 116.58.203.92
  • 116.58.203.56
  • 116.58.203.186
  • 43.245.120.61

Do we take any action or just wait and see? Gbawden (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @NahidSultan.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gbawden: "globally blocked" is only for IP Addresses, RoksanaM is "globally locked".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Dunno, but I started Commons:Deletion requests/File:ArcT.jpg anyway. (same uploader as ARC.jpg) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I globally locked the account, it is one of the sock accounts of Crosswiki LTA User:জঙ্গলবাসী. ~ Nahid Talk 13:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Charmi004

Copyvios despite warning. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ blocked 1 week. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

ArionEstar's low-effort nominations have been reported and discussed previously at ANU here: Excessive Featured Pictures nominations by ArionEstar of low quality photos, he got warned and was blocked for an extended period of time because of it. Now he's come back nominating (here and here) with no change in his behaviour. – Lucas 17:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Shame that it has come so far. Two weeks block of ArionEstar that I was going to impose 8 June, now should be caught up. I wonder why it is still impossible on Commons to block a user only for selected pages, whereas important WP versions have implemented this feature. COM:FPC/CL probably would be enough. --A.Savin 20:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Per phab:T218626, community consensus is needed for it to be enabled here. 1989 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Lucasbosch: Are you purposely watching Arion's edits? Like Arion, you took a month off of editing. Your first edit after this was on Arion's two nominations, which may be a coincidence but something seems suspicious. --Boothsift 00:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Boothsift: I took time off participating on FPC—and still do—but from time to time I looked at the nominations without logging in, never went through the whole list so I could have easily missed his two nominations. – Lucas 10:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_79&oldid=368085780"