Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU

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

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

^{Translate this page}

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

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~135
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~3
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-07: ~136

Other:

• Duplicates: ~0
• Advertisements/spam: ~1
• Personal photos/selfies: ~1
• Other speedy deletions: ~242
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~4
• Undeletion requests: ~12

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~2
• Interface admin: ~15
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~3
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

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

---

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

---

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

Note

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

myexbackcoach.com / Lee Wilson spam

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

Accounts involved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reneh3790

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

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

I call your bluff and raise 200.

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

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

File:Collage Guatemala City.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrick Rogel

"Patrick Rogel" marked a photo that I was given express permission to use by the owner "for deletion" - His "talk" channel appears to have similar complaints...

To whom it may concern,

I am fairly new to Wikipedia. I have spent the better part of 3 years contributing quality content to 'genius.com' and have just been promoted to Senior Editor of One West Magazine - I say that only to preface my experience with citing sources, my track record for accuracy and consistency, and my relation to Darnell Price (who provided the aforementioned profile picture).

I was recently asked by OG Cuicide's management (a well-known rapper, entrepreneur, and activist from Los Angeles) to help re-create a Wikipedia page for him, since his previous page was inexplicably removed. That is a whole other story (regarding a corrupt Wiki contributor from Turkey who threatened to remove the page if Darnell Price didn't pay him to "protect" it...) but I will stick to the point here as best I can.

It appears as though "Patrick Rogel" has marked other people's content for deletion before, and those users are just as unhappy with their experiences as I am becoming with mine. (see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Patrick_Rogel)

It is extremely disappointing to see that this user clearly has a habit of doing this. Especially after reading the following response on his page:

>Dear Mr. Rogel, Through the death of my husband Leonhard R. Lang, the image rights have passed to me. As his widow, I am entitled to make illustrations of his works available to the public - and this is my express wish. I am Heidi-pina. Please take back your deletion request. Yours sincerely, Heidelinde Lang --Heidi-pina (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Please address this concern as quickly as you can, I am trying to launch this new Wikipedia bio soon.

Thank you for your time,

-Aaron Williams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace woe (talk • contribs)

Dear Aaron, per our policy all files previously published somewhere in internet under non-free license should have OTRS-permission. Copyright belongs to Heidelinde Lang and formally only she has right to publish the photo under free license. So you should open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail should be sent to our permissions department at [email protected]. Permission must come from copyright holder, that menas from Heidelinde Lang. Commons takes all copyright questions very seriously. For example, you said "own work" on file page, although you are not the photographer. Taivo (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Patrick tagged the image for speedy deletion because it is an exact copy of an image already published on the internet. He did nothing wrong here. Emailed permission from the copyright holder of the photograph (not the subject) is necessary.

The Wikipedia article was deleted because your client does not meet Wikipedia standards of notability, not because of any corruption. Please read the Wikipedia policy on conflict-of-interest editing (particularly this starter guide) - since you have a connection to the subject, you are limited as to what edits you can make. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 Comment I think the request concerned File:4w1a8578aaaaa.jpg (which is a picture of Darnell Price AKA OG Cuicide) and has nothing to do with this Leonhard R. Lang thing. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Biology2016

Biology2016 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Abusing multiple accounts: same uploads or reuploads of already deleted files by Evolution2point0 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, all files deleted. I have a bad feeling about these accounts. Could you please ask for checkuser for sleepers? Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

ภาษาอังกฤษ

ภาษาอังกฤษ (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) This user's entire contributions list has been nonsensical edits. When I reverted them on File:GitHub logo 2013 padded.svg and warned them, they proceeded to make it worse. Opencooper (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done I blocked the user for a month, deleted 3 copvios and reverted vandalism. Taivo (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Jukomart

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

Reuploads the same file again and again despite previous block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 Comment :-( I explained him, that if he once more re-uploads the photo, then he will be blocked again. I explained him need of OTRS-permission. Good is that the photo has now EXIF and he does not claim own work anymore. Taivo (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for the 3rd time, now for 2 weeks. — Racconish ^💬 06:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Pili02

Pili02 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user posted only images in copyvio until now, and yet had a last warning months ago. It seems he/she ignored it, considering that today that account posted another photo, this time taken from Facebook. --Alex10 (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello admins please take care of User:Anpanman1

Anpanman1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

He/she has uploaded enough copyvios, and is not stopping despite warnings -- Eatcha (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Percivalfigaro

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

Same uploads as Jukomart (talk · contribs) so block evasion. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Re-upload deleted, sockpuppet indef'd. Thanks for letting us know. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello admins please take care of User:Shivabiswas22

Shivabiswas22 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user is Uploading Personal images. He is not going to stop IMO despite multiple requests see his talk page -- Eatcha (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Last warning, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Knvrajesh

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done One week block, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

And indef'ed on en.wp for undisclosed paid editing. The topics leading to that block there are in the area of telecom, not the celebrity-pictures being uploaded here, but I cannot rule out that the editor is some third-party SEO for hire, so I don't know if the week should be extended to indef here also. But obviously will require a close eye upon their return. DMacks (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

ویرایشگر878

ویرایشگر878 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done The user was twice warned before and every upload was really copyvio, so I deleted last remaining uploads and blocked him/her for a month. Taivo (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Rahul sharma from Delhi

Rahul sharma from Delhi (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues copyvios after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done I blocked him/her for a month (second block) and deleted some copyvios. Taivo (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Peter don from milan

Peter don from milan (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues copyvios just out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Third block, all files deleted, no useful edit. Indef. Yann (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Axel Fabricio Acosta

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

Continues copyvios just out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done 3 months block: huge list of copyvios, no useful edit, 2nd block. Next block should be indef. Yann (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

DRIS92 vs. Hanooz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WLP socks and disruptive uploads

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

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

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

Орфорак

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

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

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

Obakeng-electrobux

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

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

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

Meninas sereias

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

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

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

Terminature

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

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

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

Lipeh Spanic

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

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

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

Humayon Ahmed Emon

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

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

Verdy p

User:Verdy p introduced [13] a very major change to {{Lang-VP}} on 19:13, 25 June 2019‎. Next day, I opposed with this change by opening [14] a thread on the template talk page. Their statements are contradictory, and they do not respond to my suggestions (using the 6 official languages of UN). Instead, they just undo [15] [16] every edit I make on the template. Their block log indicates [17] they have recently been blocked for disruptive editing. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JuniorJunior

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

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

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

LTA:ISECHIKA 201906

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

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

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

Jakeirapeak

• Jakeirapeak (talk · contribs)

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

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

Topic ban User:Incnis Mrsi from participating in ANs

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

Many of their reports end up archived while they have been left unresponded to (some examples from recent archives: [18] [19] [20]). This has a reason. They often criticize admins bitterly and condescendingly. As a result, few admins would like to engage with them. For a while, I tried to respond to their requests and engage with them positively, but I was proved wrong. They attacked me unprovoked with an uncivil comment [21]. And now they just accused [22] me of harassing a user completely unfoundedly. I asked them to justify their accusation, but they didn't do so. Baseless accusations of harassments should not be taken lightly as they are real crimes in many countries.

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

• They have recently been blocked for making a toxic atmosphere [23]
• Multiple warnings on their current talk page by different admins [24] "you must stop playing games on our noticeboards, like here" [25], [26]
• "smart admin candidates on this site are in short supply" [27]
• "I’m not sure a random sysop browsing Media missing permission as of 7 May 2019 may be trusted in this respect" [28]
• "HutheMeow – a case study in the school for abusers run by Commons sysops", "although some Commoners will fight back, sysops are generally lazy and won’t intervene" [29]
• "The JuTa’s syndrome appears to be contagious" [30]
• It appears non-Westerners are not trustworthy according to them: "Moreover, I know that their landline IP range covers a large area in Iran hundreds km across. Please, do not refer me to trials conducted in Farsi wikis. You are a Westerner and very likely will be impartial, which is not the case for Persians." [31]. Now I understand why they wrote " “our” check-users, exclusively Western" on my RFA [32].

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

•  Support as proposer. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 19:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Support their hostility is pervasive, unwarranted and deeply unwelcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  Because Incnis Mrsi reported Ralf’s abuse of the file move privilege and warring over keeping the vanity “RalfR” in filenames? My record of watching various abuse appears also to be the dominant motivation for several other users here. Don’t be misled by this rally of support for 4nn1l2 – it is, unfortunately, a rally against transparency on Commons. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Neutral: I agree that this user’s tone and content are some times deplorable, but I am against any punitive action for three reasons:

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

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

•  Support.--Vulphere 04:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose see below. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Because censorship and cover-up of various abuse can’t work effectively while I am allowed here? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about a topic ban for Incnis Mrsi

Responding to the links:

• [33]: can't say if nobody responded. The second DR was closed while that notice was still up. The first one was closed 2 days after the notice was archived, but it was a complicated DR.
• Seemingly in response to [34], Yann blocked Gustmeister and Taivo protected User talk:Bookworm8899.
• No admin seems to have responded to [35], indeed. So because admins don't process a perfectly reasonable report, Incnis must be silenced?
• [36] was possibly unfortunate, but should probably be seen as an example of a vandalistic username. Incnis may have used 4nn1l2 for the example because 4nn1l2 started that discussion. Going with COM:AGF, I wouldn't seek punishment for just this. Also, this was not on an administrators' board.
• [37] I didn't follow the template discussion. I don't know.
• "you must stop playing games on our noticeboards, like here": Incnis made a valid point about the concerned user not having been notified. I assume Jcb previously speedy closed a report for that reason, triggering Incnis to ping him.
• [38] not sure this was actually a personal attack
• [39] okay that was a shit move
• [40] that copyvio tag was nonsense and it was in use so apparently not out of scope, converting it to DR doesn't seem useful. I can't comment on the copyright status, I don't know what "source page" JuTa was referring to.
• "smart admin candidates on this site are in short supply" [41] Smart admin candidates on this site are in short supply, but that was a flame.
• "I’m not sure a random sysop browsing Media missing permission as of 7 May 2019 may be trusted in this respect" [42] I wholeheartedly agree!
• "HutheMeow – a case study in the school for abusers run by Commons sysops", "although some Commoners will fight back, sysops are generally lazy and won’t intervene" [43] Incnis is agitated when seeing smaller but potentially more damaging cases don't get as much attention as larger but relatively harmless cases. This is indeed something abusers could exploit.
• "The JuTa’s syndrome appears to be contagious" [44] verydy p marked something as minor that shouldn't be minor, JuTa marks every edit as minor. Humor much? It may not be the best joke ever, but is that a crime?
• It appears non-Westerners are not trustworthy according to them: "Moreover, I know that their landline IP range covers a large area in Iran hundreds km across. Please, do not refer me to trials conducted in Farsi wikis. You are a Westerner and very likely will be impartial, which is not the case for Persians." [45]. Now I understand why they wrote " “our” check-users, exclusively Western" on my RFA [46]. I've seen some doubtful stuff from the Persian CU department..

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