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

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI

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.

User:Rehanarose uploads fotos, adds unhelpful categories to his uploads, waits until the uploads are deleted, than uploads some more fotos, adds more categories. --C.Suthorn (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done @C.Suthorn: Please engage with the user on their talk page first. And if you bring a discussion here please inform them Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question has in the meantime been blocked as a vandalism only account and as for as I can see the blocking admin has not informed them before blocking. I made previously deletion requests for uploads by the user, who are documented on them talk page, them did not interact (if you do not take into account that them made DR on them own uploads that already had a DR. This vandal could have been blocked long ago, and that would have saved effort and time. The way this user worked was easy enougth to identify (even by a bot) as them added masses of unuseful categories to them uploads. --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to take a close look at this editor. Their activities seem to consist of transferring a very large number of Flickr images here, and nominating other editor's images for deletion, often with a very poor understanding of the policies and laws which are applicable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous comments on their talk page, but only a single response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This appears to be related to Commons:Deletion requests/File:UnionSquareMetronome crop.jpg. I agree that it would have been helpful to have all these DRs in one place, so thank you for including them for the benefit of the closer.

But it's not apparent that these are baseless nominations. Art affixed to buildings does not necessarily become architecture. For example, a gargoyle affixed to the exterior of a building may be De minimis in a picture of the entire building, but would be considered a sculpture in an image consisting of primarily the gargoyle itself. GMG^talk 12:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Have you read Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States? While buildings are OK under FOP artworks aren't and certainly not an artwork stuck on the exterior of a building Gbawden (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, I've been working in this area for 15 years and I'm quite familiar with it. This case is not artwork "affixed to the building", it is part and parcel of the design of the building. A specific Federal court case (which I will try to find) for another similar situation ruled that when the artwork is intrinsic to the building, it is considered to be a part of the building and FoP restrictions concerning stand-alone artwork does not apply to it. Also, GMG is wrong concerning gargoyles. They are a part of the building, and photographs of them are part of the architecture of the building. The same might not apply to a stand-alone statue, depending on circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would this by chance be Leicester v. Warner Bros, which determined that elements which are separable from the utilitarian aspects of a building are subject to copyright? GMG^talk 13:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the case, although I would not have glossed it in the way you have. An analysis is here In any event, my understanding is the "Metronome" is an intrinsic part of the building and connot be removed from it. This being the case, it it impossible to take a photograph of that face of the building without taking a picture of "Metronome". Since US copyright law allowed architecture to be copyrighted only with the proviso that they be photographable from any public space, "Metronome" does not fall under the category of visual artworks that cannot be photographed because they are copyrighted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This specific nomination looks fine to me; I would need more research to figure out which way to !vote, but the fact that it's debatable means that a DR is appropriate, DRs don't need to be a slam-dunk case. However, they have many other issues as I've detailed below, such as nominating images which are not slam-dunk cases for speedy deletion, making poor heuristic evaluations, etc., all the while uploading copyvios of their own. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I don't really pretend to understand all of the broader context here. But if a DR is debatable then that's kind of the purpose of a DR. GMG^talk 17:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: I notified them of this discussion for you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A1Cafel has shown up on this board many times before. In September 2019 and April 2020, they were brought here for transferring duplicates from Flickr and nominating the older uploads for deletion. I banned them from using flickr2commons as a result of the second discussion, but reversed the ban after they appealed to me on my talk page. In May 2020, The Squirrel Conspiracy proposed a ban on nominating files for deletion, but it was judged to be premature.

Unfortunately, I think the community's patience has been exhausted. While a large portion of what they nominate for deletion is correct, their error rate is far too high and their deletion nominations show up frequently at COM:UNDEL. Many of them are because the copyright holder in the EXIF does not match the username or other issues with the metadata. Some users choose to use their real name or a different pseudonym in the metadata than their Commons username, so that it is not a reason to decide that an image is a copyvio in and of itself. Instead, nuance and proper judgment is required: Is the uploader mixing a bunch of different names in the EXIF? Does the uploader have a history of copyvios? Then there is a legitimate case for deletion. But if an uploader consistently uses a particular name in the EXIF, and the files cannot be found elsewhere using Tineye, tagging them for speedy deletion is the wrong approach. They also tagged files transferred from Wikipedia without checking with a Wikipedia admin to see if the original upload had more information on the source, and mistook an insect screen for a computer monitor. Their own uploads (e.g. File:Yahoo奇摩 - Google Chrome 2020 4 8 上午 01 09 47 (49746690721).png) show that they have no reliable understanding what is and isn't a copyright violation.

At this point I see little choice but to impose a topic ban from nominating images for deletion in any form. This includes COM:DR, {{Speedydelete}}, {{Nld}}, {{Nsd}}, {{Npd}}, etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Since my last proposal I've seen a lot more of A1Cafel's nominations. It looks like he goes on streaks: he identifies an issue, then nominates all of the files that have that issue. When his understanding of the policy is correct, it's very useful (IIRC he's flushed out a lot of files for no FoP in certain countries, for example). When he misunderstands the policy, he winds up generating a lot of work for other people to clean up (like when he nominated a bunch of files because a non-OTRS agent applied the OTRS tag). If we could find a way to keep his nominations within policy, I'd be fine letting him keep nominating things. The problem is how do we get there? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think at the very least, a ban on speedy deletion is in order because it gives others little chance to notice the nomination before it gets deleted. Yes, the deleting admin(s) are also partly at fault, but unfortunately there are just too many files to get through in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and admin patrollers would not be able to get through the backlog if they had to research each case with the same care which is given to COM:UNDEL requests, so a lot of the burden and trust is placed on speedy deletion taggers to get it right. The nxd templates are the same, just with a one-week delay, which doesn't help unless someone wants to volunteer to check each of their taggings. If we don't want to go with a full deletion ban, maybe forcing them to use DR is an option. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• My experience with A1Cafel has been limited, but what there's been of it has led me to the conclusion that their competence in the area of deletions is distinctly lacking. I would agree with King of Hearts that a topic ban from nominating images for deletion in any form is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A revengeful vote? IMO Ken doesn't want his images to be deleted, and then he agrees with this topic-ban proposal. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again we have an instance of this user trying to be helpful, but either not understanding the policy well enough or being sloppy in implementation: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Possibly wrong inactivity desysops. It seems the problem is that he likes to operate in administrative areas that demand a lower error rate than he is currently capable of, leaving behind a mess for others to clean up. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• King of Hearts, Yeah. I think that although a deletion-nomination TBAN may be appropriate (and, although I haven't considered it fully, I am inclined to support one), it will probably not be sufficient to prevent this kind of disruption. I suppose we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I also think that we ought to emphasize that w:en:WP:Communication is required, given their talk page and last archive shows a lack of response when they really ought to have responded. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I want to said was already in the previous ANU archive ("FBMD" Metadata, OTRS Ticket, PDM 1.0, FOP, etc.). I don't want to repeat once more. Of course if you want to listen, I will repeat them. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @A1Cafel: Searching through the archives, all I can find related to the points you've mentioned is Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 86#A1Cafel - Proposing ban on the user filing deletion requests, where you've only discussed the PDM issue. The Squirrel Conspiracy raised issues with your tagging of images with Facebook metadata or improperly added OTRS templates, but you did not address them. As Mdaniels5757 indicated, communication is required, and so far you haven't given us a reason to believe that your name won't appear at this noticeboard again in 1-2 months time. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • For Facebook image deletion, my reason is mainly based on Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Even nowadays, I can see images with FBMD code was nominated for deletion (or even speedy). For OTRS ticket, I also see some DRs like Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Images by Mediaportal and Commons:Deletion requests/File:YashD Shooting BSB Kolkata profile.jpg was nominated because of that. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • FWIW FB MD in exif is enough doubt for PCP and I have deleted numerous images with FB MD Gbawden (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @A1Cafel: The problem is that you take something which is a valid cause for concern and treat it as a rule, e.g. all FBMD images are copyvios, all OTRS tags added by non-members are problematic, all buildings/public art in a particular country need to be deleted, etc., often without considering the specifics of the case. How do you plan to avoid errors in your deletion nominations in the future? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • On a series of 10+ images from the early 2000s by Mindspillage, you tagged them as having no source. She has identified herself as the photographer, which should be sufficient. Why did you retag them as no source? I have reverted your tags. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obsuser (talk · contribs) reverts and removes copyvio tags for clearly copyrighted photo. In order to avoid edit war can someone warn him. --Smooth O (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smooth O: I warned them, but see also en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obsuser.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 06:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No edits for more than 2 days, so situation is not urgent. His/her rename requests are handled and generally declined. If Obsuser will continue disruptive edits, then (s)he should be blocked. Taivo (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pkj19851 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Repeatedly uploading photos about non-notable party Bharatiya Sablok Party. Promotional photos+copyvios+selfies. Clearly not here to build wikipedia OPEN SOURCE MEDIA REPOSITORY!!! All of their edits and uploads are for promotion. Already blocked indef on enwiki for the same. thanks QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 13:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Most of us here are not to build Wikipedia. Can we please stop spreading the statements about Commons being for Wikipedia only, it creates very bad environment for contributors like myself. I cannot find information about the party you have stated, if my memory is correct there is a similarly (but differently) named right wing party in India, but nothing with that name exactly. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 15:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* I have changed my words to suit your(!) requirements. Though the problem here is not what commons is but, the mentioned user is using it as webhost platform to advertise it's non-notable party and it's people.

* You won't find any information about the party as it's non-existent and that's how those files are out of COM:SCOPE here. Hope that answers your concerns. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If such a party does not exist, I support deleting them (although definitely not through speedy). I would be more lenient if the user was an active contributor and would want a few files showing their personal pet project to the world, but in this case such files are the only contribution. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Copyvios are deleted, one remaining is nominated for deletion. I warned the user. At moment that's enough. Taivo (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uploaded a ton of blatantly non-free files. Already blocked on enwiki as a sockpuppet of a promotional user account. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. "Ton" is too much to be said. Some ten copyvios. The user was warned and stopped uploading copyvios. Copyvios are deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Friedrich Heinrich Bertling.jpg: User tinkers with description of an image I have scanned from a printed original and uploaded: replaces image source with a different one, adds alleged photographer without giving source, starts edit war. --Jossi (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see one revert apiece, and no attempt by you to communicate on their user talk page nor the file talk page. Please make an attempt to resolve minor disputes yourself before demanding administrator attention. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

imho Jossi2 has a problem. The picture was taken from the same source by me years ago. As I found out in 2017 who made it, I changed it there. J doesn't seem to accept it because he put the same picture in again. J seems to think that all has to be done in his opinion. Means his Version has to be one of an unknown. Btw I just read his changes in relation with James Bertling. It could be in my opinion usefull to take a look into the Adresskoos of Lübeck and read the Artikel which had been in the Jtiltes Reference instead of only copy and paste 150 Years of Bertling. By the way - here is a sugestion while seeing his use from namea: Please change Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg into Karl-Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Buhl-Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg. Is the named Source correct? I can't see in left Corner the sign of Gebrüder Borchers. You'll find a slightly changed version on the top of Category:Lübeckische Anzeigen.--1970gemini 21:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fan de Politique (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) This user uploaded many copyrighted images taken from websites without any permission. He needs a warning and a block if he continues. --Hangman'sDeath (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Warned & deleted most of the images. --- FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 19:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jangchulmin (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) This user needs a block. He uploaded many copyrighted images that got deleted. Then he uploaded some more copyrighted images that are nominated for deletion now since they are again taken from a website --Hangman'sDeath (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Warned by Jeff. G. @Hangman'sDeath: per COM:BLOCK blocking is a last resort - users have to be warned - something you are welcome to do yourself Gbawden (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs) as a checkuser and an administrator wants to track files at Category:Presidential Office Gazette of the Republic of China with hidden category:PD-ROC-Traffic Markings that would violate Commons:Categories#Improper categorization of categories is a cause of over-categorization once thousands of gazettes are uploaded. Continuing from stalled talks [1] [2] I do not understand which bot is involved as Magog the Ogre remains uncooperative. There must be much better category to track files. Would any uninvolved administrator please intervene and review [3] that would add irrelevant category? Meanwhile, Category:PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette is redirected to Category:PD-ROC-Traffic Markings as a temporary provision.--Jusjih (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jusjih: I'm a bit surprised why you bring this to AN/U now. You asked Magog the Ogre a question and he gives you a what I think is a friendly reply.

We use categories for different types of things. For example copyright status, source and subject. Categories for copyright status should not be mixed up with the other types of categories. We need categories for copyright status for all files. That's the way we make sure that all files have a proper license. As I understand it Magog is willing to find a better name for the category if you can find one. --MGA73 (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really matter whether I'm checkuser or not. We use hidden categories for bots all over the site but s/he is absolute determined to remove the categories, even though I've explained it would cause problems for my bot. I'm very confused by this determination, honestly. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: I do not yet consider Magog the Ogre's reply friendly enough due to failure to disclose the name of the bot. @Magog the Ogre: Are you insisting that Template:PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette may transclude Category:PD-ROC-Traffic Markings for your undisclosed bot while both being Taiwanese official public domain? Why not fix your bot to correctly and directly transclude Category:PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette? Want to ignore all rules?--Jusjih (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jusjih: It could be OgreBot or OgreBot 2.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 04:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first bot, which creates two galleries of new uploads. Not that I think it matters. I've explained this before to Jisjih (link). It seems to be an odd mix of language understanding issues and obstinance. He refuses to understand that we use license categories as trackers as a common practice, and these don't fall under the standard categorization rules. Anyway I'm going back on wikibreak for a while and will not be around to answer any more questions regarding this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is more along the lines of Village Pump discussion. It will get more attention there too. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 07:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me what Magog wants to do here is completely reasonable. It is certainly not a user conduct issue. Is there any reason not to close this discussion? - Jmabel ! talk 17:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jusjih請寫中文吧，恕我沒能看懂你反應的問題。

as far as i can understand, there's a problem with the auto cat by {{PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette}}. Category:PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette should not redirect to Category:PD-ROC-Traffic Markings. the former is for ROC presidential gazette, which is like The London Gazette, but the latter is for road signs, so you see how absurd it is to redirect one to the other.

apparently this error was introduced two years ago special:diff/290464077? i dont understand why suddenly someone is making a fuss, because it seems to me all it needs is just correcting {{PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette}}, which is a logical solution anybody could perform.--RZuo (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC) One thing i forgot to mention, I dont know what bot they are referring to. i dont see which bot is involved.--RZuo (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: 爭端出自[4]，因爲Magog the Ogre不指明何機器人。謝謝閣下主持公道，但仍要關注Magog the Ogre的反應。--Jusjih (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jusjih: 什麼機器人啊？我沒看到哪裡有機器人涉及這個追蹤分類的問題啊？這個追蹤分類是由模板裡的includeonly加進每個用了這個模板的文件。--RZuo (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I control two bots, both of which are listed on my user page, and which share a similar name as me. It would take you all of 20 seconds to look them up and see the galleries they create. It's open source code. What more do you want, the password and access to the machine where I write the code? "My reaction" was only to the fact that I explained myself multiple times to Jusjih and he continues to move the goalposts, and the like. I'm not the only bot that does this either; I believe Visual File Change uses it.

It's the way we've done this on Commons for 1.5 decades. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

plz check Category:PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette and Category:PD-ROC-Road Markings. is everything resolved now?--RZuo (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Everything is resolved, only if no further edit wars. Thanks so much.--Jusjih (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RogerRabbit888 (talk · contribs) has been an infrequent contributor for a few years and appears to almost entirely upload images with claims of own work. Several are clear copyright violations, such as File:Prince Charles at Polo.jpg being a crop from a Getty Image and File:Stuart House, Mill Lane.jpg being in existence on an internet archive record 2 years before the user's claim of own creation. Others are obviously not their own work but the sourcing is unclear, such as with File:Hyacinthe dahirel.jpg. They have uploaded several other images that may be genuinely their own work but with a proven track of copyright violation, I am struggling to give them the benefit of the doubt. Are there any views on their remaining files? From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. The user is warned and all his uploads deleted (except one, which was not a copyvio). Taivo (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal-only account. Created a little walled garden for non-existent king of Scotland. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I deleted the userpage, the only upload is nominated for deletion. Block is not needed. Taivo (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

unacceptable user name. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Jdx. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the history of File:Qamar Raza Markazi Sahab.jpg. Although warned, user/IP insist on removing DR tag. --E4024 (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. The file in question is deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Qamarkhan92. Taivo (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shpernik088 uploaded many images of slaughterhouses, which are not their own work. I have marked several files for speedy deletion, but I did not check every one of their uploads. Any help with identifying further copyvios is appreciated. Most appear to be taken from a Facebook group page called "glass walls israel". See [5]. FunnyMath (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done User warned and most of their photos deleted under PRP Gbawden (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iwfksk 1104 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

All files uploaded by this user are copyvios. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done User warned Gbawden (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ニャンコ6767 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user has uploaded multiple files of copyvio. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Warning given Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WastingDust281 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

All files uploaded by this user are copyvios. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done First warning given. @Yuraily Lic: per COM:BLOCK they need to be warned first, which you can do yourself. If they persist then bring them here Gbawden (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please please help me delete my photo uploads? I have requested many times, but the admins have removed the requests.. please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhanya Gamaarachchi (talk • contribs) 2020-08-17 08:47:26 (UTC)

• @Suhanya Gamaarachchi: You are in the wrong place. You should (and already have) started a deletion discussion. I will reply in more detail there. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 09:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked TylerKutschbach at their talk page but I have gotten no response. During the course of July, TylerKutschbach has been removing all categories from any presidential maps that others upload while uploading their own maps. See [6], [7], and here. As such, all the presidential election maps categories contain only TylerKutschbach's maps and no one else's (these are hundreds of maps who have vanished). I'm assuming those maps are wrong of something but making them uncategorized is not helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Deleting images and graphics from applicable categories is disruptive behavior. --Smial (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am moving this from the help desk to here. It is not perhaps well thought out by me, but it was suggest that I could copy/paste it here.

(Moved from the Help Desk)

I need to know how to behave properly. In the last week or so an editor, User:Elkost, came to a category of a country (Pakistan) I have been editing in for four years and changed major categories into ones unfamiliar to me. I wrote to him on his talk page, first to let them know I was hopeful[8], then to describe that I was have trouble with all the sudden new changes.[9] [10]. Maybe I did not express myself the best possible way, but they answered kindly.[11]

Then an Admin, A.Savin with who previously tried to block me and now follows me around to revert my edits but will not discuss these with me, posted this about me to Elkost, calling me a vandal, including most hurtfully "in my almost 15 years on Commons, never seen an other user with such combination of incompetence and toxicity (maybe except the WMF banned INeverCry)" [12]. Elkost sent him a "thanks". I then ask Elkost about the philosophy of the category changes they were making.[13] They answered that they did not know.[14] Meanwhile, A.Savin again posted that my vandalism was continuing.[15] This made me look very bad, and I posted this (which is true).[16]. A.Savin then posted this.[17]. A.Savin has refused to discuss any of his edits reverting me from the beginning, even though I approached him very kindly. He even followed me to Alaska yesterday and reverted me there. I feel very bad and want to know how to handle this. I did post at the Village Pump asking about the philosophy of this new (to me) category system, especially the Category:Activities in Pakistan as A.Savin reverted me when I tried to include the categories hidden there as categories of Pakistan. Thank you and best wishes, Krok6kola (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should I ping A.Savin? I don't want more trouble and pinging him has always ended badly. Krok6kola (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My previous name was Kabbles but I changed it to make it less wimpy. Krok6kola (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not tired to repeat it again and again and again... and again:

I'm not targeting "Krok6kola". (They are really not as important to feel the need to permanently waste my time on them.)

It's just like... If someone does vandalism on categories which have been stable for years; for example blanking instead of RfD, or replacing more specific categories by a diffusion-requiring one; then... yes, I have to revert it... even if "Krok6kola" is feeling targeted because of that.

The claim that I "refused to discuss" is a lie. You may see previous requests on my Talk page, for example User:A.Savin/Archive/2020#Would_you_mind_if_I_moved_Clifton_Beach_to_Clifton,_Karachi_(in_accordance_with_the_enwiki_article)?. I answered everything to the best of my knowledge. If "Krok6kola" didn't want to discuss anymore because there were no arguments left, it's their problem; obviously this doesn't mean that it was me who refused discussion. --A.Savin 13:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Krok6kola: Please keep the interpersonal conflicts off of the help desk. I believe this is not the first time I've said that to you, but consider this time an administrative warning. If you have problems with a user's conduct and feel a need to bring it somewhere other than user talk pages, this might be the least appropriate place to bring it. Usually things like that belong at COM:AN/U; if they really raise issues of broad interest, then [[COM:VP]. [[COM:VP] would certainly be where to bring this if it is mainly a content dispute, but then you should be trying to focus on content, not conduct. People looking for tangible help in using Commons should not have to wade through issues about interpersonal conflicts. - Jmabel ! talk 15:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jmabel: Administrative warning? I don't see what you're saying being a valid reason to block someone. 1989_talk 18:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if all parties would stop commenting on this section; if this is a dispute worth having, please feel free to copy-paste some or all of the above to COM:AN/U and continue there. You are welcome to post a link here to where this discussion continues, or (if you cut-and-paste it all) to replace this section with such a link. - Jmabel ! talk 15:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you forget the conversations you and I had with AFBorchert User talk:AFBorchert/Archives/2020 in which he said to me not to post on your page anymore since it upset you so much since you could not block me that you said "I'm so sick, tired, and I only just want to die". And you forget that I did prove the need and created Category:Clifton, Karachi, showed that the address of your building photo was in Clifton Beach and moved the disputed images there (except for your photo as you do maintain strict control of them). I recreated the mosque category you deleted and moved the images back.

AFBorchert also says you accepted the fact you put "unjustified" block warnings on my talk page, and that calling me "stupid" did not help your case. And I do feel you are targeting me because you are almost the only editor that has reverted me so when that "red" thing occurs at the top signaling a revert, it is almost always you. Yesterday you reverted an edit in Alaska, a place you never edit. Recently you reverted me 10 times on one day, while only two other editors have reverted me: one who explained my error in the location of a road, and the other who explained to me how to added a person as an alumni of a college (so I learned something).

I ask that A.Savin stop reverting me without explanation, that he stop following me to places he normally does not edit to revert me. And I ask that he not follow me to the talk pages of others, including that of Elkost of whom I had asked some honest questions about the new category system he created in Pakistan in the last week. There A.Savin repeatedly add negative comments about me on that talk page.

Specifically I ask that he explain to me and to Elkost his comment to Elkost about me: "in my almost 15 years on Commons, never seen an other user with such combination of incompetence and toxicity (maybe except the WMF banned INeverCry)"

If in the opinion of others, these comments are not true, I ask that he remove those posts on the talk page of Elkost and explain to Elkost why.

I apologize in advance if any of this is inappropriate. On Wikipedia I was not accustomed to making these kind of complaints. Thank you very much. Krok6kola (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Yesterday I asked about this new category system at the Village Pump, but neither Elkost nor A.Savin have answered the pings Jmabel suggested I make. Krok6kola (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just pinging some users who are interested in maintaining categories to kindly ask their opinion: @Elkost, Stolbovsky, W.carter, Joshbaumgartner, Rodhullandemu, and Leit: . And yeah, I'm really tired of all that conflict-seeking rubbish. Do what you want! --A.Savin 17:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping but I am recusing from politics here. Just going for 1000 VIs and 500 QIs before I find something more worthwhile to do. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you explain these rollbacks against Krok6kola? My question is to verify you're not misusing rollback. 1989_talk 18:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate your talents in resolving disputes. But seriously, as there are quite many reverts, it's not possible to elaborate each, so I do the latest one: it violates COM:OVERCAT. Many other cases are similar. If you're interested, take a closer look at them; fortunately, Commons is a transparent project. --A.Savin 19:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If you don't give me an explanation, I have no other choice but to block you. 1989_talk 19:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  For what reason amongst those stated in COM:BP, please? And additionally, you are clearly biased. --A.Savin 19:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Gjeon338 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Uploaded File:허팝 노란색 잠바.jpg after final warning, which looks like a copyvio to me, just like their other similar uploads.--BevinKacon (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]