Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 76

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• Kyung-heeu2030 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues copyvio after previous blocks. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked 3 months. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Everything is copyvio. Already warned twice. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done 1 week. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• User: Aspíllaga (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning for doing so, and after Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 24#Aspíllaga was archived without resolution.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done 1 week Gbawden (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed due to long-term ignorance of copyright. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

User:None xd2 has uploaded nothing but non-free celebrity images. Would someone please delete all of the uploads and give them a warning? Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Deleted and notified. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Second block, nothing but copyvios, 3 months. All files deleted, or nominated for deletion. --Yann (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• How to stop this long term junk uploader? They have been going for over a year now. Commons:Abuse filter?
• See log of File:Ashutosh zeff.jpg
• Ashu Tosh zeff 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Ashu zeff bill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Ashutosh Singh Roy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Ashutosh singh zeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (has user page)
• Ashutosh ZEF bhai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Ashutosh zeff 00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (uploads still active)
• Ashutosh ZEFF 001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Ashutosh zeff 007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Ashutosh zeff 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Ashutosh zeff 03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• ASHUTOSH zeff 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Ashutosh zeff 10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• AshuTosh zeff v (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (uploads still active)
• Ashutosh zeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (uploads still active)
• Ashutosh zeff90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Zeff Ashu Tosh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done All accounts blocked, all files deleted. Could you request a check user please? A IP-range block might be useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done I blocked Cabinet for a month. All his/her uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Continues copyvios after two blocks. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked for a year. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Shamar54 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Shamar54 is just here to generate fantasy election results & material for his online game at https://www.nationstates.net/nation=eraver and to upload copyvio images without any indication of what they represent or where they came from. Cabayi (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Right. First block, so one week only. --Yann (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Ruairiaskin0505 (talk · contribs)

Looks like everything they've ever uploaded is a copyright violation, and they're actively continuing to upload despite warnings with no attempt at communication. GMG^talk 13:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Support There's another user I don't remember the name having uploaded the same kind of images a couple of days ago. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion (user:Панн). See ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Панн 2 Робионек Д. С 16:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• User: Random bestest (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after warning and recreation of deleted content.

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 04:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Continues copyvios after previous block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by Yann for 3 months. Gbawden (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Nothing but copyvios. Yann (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Nothing but copyvios. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done I gave them a last warning. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked for a week. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Reuploads copyvios after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done All suspicious files deleted, or nominated for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• User: PN84100RAUL84100 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Reasons for reporting: This user seems to upload images clearly from scientific papers or website but pretend they are his/her own work. It might be a lack of knowledge of Commons rules or premeditated, I connot say, but should be warned about it by an administrator.

Pierre cb (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Last warning sent. Files deleted, or nominated for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Over the past few weeks an anonymous editor using multiple Telstra IPs (thanks to the ISP not using a sticky or static IP per user) has been creating a large amount of empty categories.

• 1.136.106.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.189.37.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.136.106.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:8003:4EBC:2401:D444:7544:FE3C:6710 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:8004:1200:5CED:9479:DD04:C839:D2B4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Auntof6 left a message regarding the empty category creation on the talk page of 101.189.37.53. Bidgee (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done I am deleting these empty categories. Yann (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• ILDE.ZAFRA.P (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Uploads and reuploads already deleted out of scope content. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment These paintings could be in scope, but we need the permission from the artist's heirs. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Adjunto el permiso de los herederos del pintor Juan Almagro López y que ha sido enviado a permissions-es@wikimedia.org Cediendo derechos de autor a usuario ILDE.ZAFRA.P para Wikimedia ([Ticket#2019031710005771] Confirmación de recepción (Re: Cediendo derechos de [...])

Inés Solas Almagro <inessolas@gmail.com> 21:26 (hace 5 minutos) para permissions-es

Por la presente declaramos que somos las titulares de los derechos de autor exclusivos de las OBRAS DE ARTE DEL PINTOR JUAN ALMAGRO LÓPEZ que se encuentran alojadas en [1] [2] [3]. Estos derechos los hemos cedidos a Ildefonso Zafra Peña (usuario ILDE.ZAFRA.P) para la publicación del artículo Juan Almagro López en Wikipedia.

Consentimos publicar dichas obras bajo la licencia libre Creative Commons Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (BY-SA-4.0).

Reconocemos que concedemos a cualquiera el derecho a usar la imagen en un producto comercial, así como a modificarla de acuerdo a sus necesidades.

Somos conscientes de que siempre retendremos los derechos de autor de nuestro abuelo Juan Almagro López, así como el derecho a ser reconocido como autor según los términos de la licencia elegida para su obra. Las modificaciones que otros hagan a la imagen no le serán atribuidas.

Somos conscientes de que la licencia libre sólo afecta a los derechos de autor, y  nos reservamos  el derecho de emprender acciones legales contra cualquiera que use esta obra violando cualquier otra ley, como restricciones de marcas registradas, libelo o restricciones geográficas específicas.

Reconocemos que no podemos retractarnos de este acuerdo, y que la imagen puede o no ser almacenada permanentemente en un proyecto de la Fundación Wikimedia.

Inés Mª Solas Almagro (nieta de Juan Almagro López)

Dolores Mª Solas Almagro (nieta de Juan Almagro López)

17 de marzo de 2019

--ILDE.ZAFRA.P (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

User:UnangKarlito's latest upload is definitely not their own work and is likely copyrighted: File:2019 WALL.png. The user has uploaded about 25 color images which are all sourced from Facebook. The black and white images they uploaded in 2014 all have sketchy Flickr sourcing with incorrect author information. For example, File:Post-Office-Jones-Brdg-1947.jpg claims to be both PD-USGov-Military, PD-Philippines, and PD-PhilippinesGov. The author given is the name of the Flickr account (not the unknown photographer) and the Flickr link goes to a page with a completely different image. The user was given a last warning for copyright violations in 2014. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Not really a hardline violation of any rules, but it’s unsettling to see this user’s page styled to mimic exactly those of WMF employees, down to the use of their default portrait image. Even if done out of naïveté and not malice, this could mislead other users (it did mislead me, for a few seconds), with potentially problematic ramifications. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• m:Template:User info may be used by anyone, and is used by a large number of users who are not WMF staff and do not claim to be. GMG^talk 18:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Tuvalkin, you don't have to be a WMF staff member to use m:Template:User info. This user is from Congo and it seems they are involved in promoting Wikimedia projects in Congo. I don't see anything concerning in their user page. Can we close this? Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• I had no idea about m:Template:User info —  warning withdrawn, then, although what I said is still 100% relevant: it cannot only me noticing a common theme among WMF empoyees user pages. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Withdrawn, nothing to do. — D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 14:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Everything is copyvio, warned twice. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done One week block, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Everything is copyvio. Besides as soon as File:Marthavanityfair.jpg is deleted File:Marthahuntcannes.jpg is created by Godshunt (talk · contribs) so I request an RCU. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done One week block, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Daniela Galvis Mora (talk · contribs)

Continued copyright violations after warnings and block. The only think that saves any of their images is that some are simple logos, although I assume that was entirely by accident. GMG^talk 17:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Second block, 3 months. All files deleted. --Yann (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

RameshKumarChennai (talk · contribs) RameshKumarPIn (talk · contribs)

Xwiki spam, block evasion, User:RameshKumarPIn. GMG^talk 19:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Already blocked, all files deleted, or nominated for deletion. Yann (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User erroneously claiming "own work" on screengrab: File:Jacinda Ardern (Mohammedan veil).png (repeatedly). On en wiki, user states that Arden's "use of that rag over her head is, apparently, newsworthy" // sikander { talk } 21:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I warned this user yesterday for removing deletion tags and this morning I found that they summarily reverted deletions following a DR I closed. I also warned them about their behaviour as they have been rude towards the person who nominated their files for deletion Gbawden (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked for one week because of disruptive editing. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, first of all sorry for having to edit this page, you have better things to do, and the same applies to me. I'm a long contributor in the project but haven been put under pressure but the mentioned user from time to time and the intensity is getting higher. I can add diffs to that, but this is not the point of the discussion and I don't want to right a 3 pages long report. I decided not to upload any material until next year due to the pressure he's applying on me and noted that on my user page today, which is definitely no attack towards anybody but a fact, an explanation to an important restriction to my edits in the project. I can answer that to everybody who asks or I can state it somewhere where users can read it. The mentioned user, being judge in his own case, removed the note, threaten me and asked me to go. I've restored it, but leave to your (AND NOT TO HIS) attention to decide how to proceed. Is there a way that this user keeps away from me, I'd be more than happy, not to ping him, not participate in any review of his images, not edit hi user or talk page and not contact him over any other channel and I just ask for the same. Thank you for your attention. Poco² 20:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

In principle the user should not edit your user page. I think there was not sufficient justification in this case to cross that line. You may wish to protect your user page if the behaviour continues. Jcb (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

So a user can make personal attacks on other users as long as it is done on their own user page? I find that strange. --Cart (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Poco's user page is currently an attack page directed at two users. Myself and User:Basile Morin. Attack pages are not permitted on Commons. The wording on that page claims a criminal offence (in the UK) has been committed. I must say, that advising another admin to abuse his power to protect his own attack page is just about the most foolish admin advice I have seen in a long time. User page privilege does not extend to creating banners that attack two other users.

For background, this dispute started at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cormorán africano (Microcarbo africanus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 48.jpg where Poco made false claims that, Since November, he was downsizing all his new uploads because he was annoyed with Basile's oppose vote. Yes, I know that to everyone else, that sounds really really childish. It is. And what's more, he wasn't: it was just hot air. A hoax. This is not the first time we have seen DIVA behaviour from Poco. I said "If you start "vandalising" your uploads out of some petty dispute at FPC or QI, and if FPC/QI is actually causing you to reduce the quality of your uploads, perhaps you should take a break from FPC/QI." I stand by that.

There is further discussion at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#behaviour on FP. As you can see from that discussion, this is not the first time Poco has gone on a hoax upload-strike because he's annoyed about something. Poco made claims that his camera is so high-resolution that he deserves special consideration, which is also false. My previous complains about Poco have been that despite being one of the longest participants at FPC, he nominates constantly and carelessly, with by quite some margin, the lowest success rate and highest "withdrawal" rate: in other words, he expects the community to sort the "meh" from the "wow". I am not alone in that view. And to compound this, Poco rarely reviews other people's photos at FPC, and certainly not "doing his bit" to help others. Poco contributes many great photos to Commons, but in terms of the FPC forum, it is all take take. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, these are quite ordinary grounds for occasional complaint/discussion. None of this comes even close to the "h" word. Poco posted a "Good bye" message on the 13th but we can see that he's decided to return already.

I request another admin revert his user page edit, and warn Poco not to restore it. I have not asked Poco "to go". I have recommended he take a wikibreak. -- Colin (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Without taking sides in the subject or subjects that oppose the people concerned, I agree that the text is not appropriate and I think that Diego should remove it himself. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Poco reverted my comment on his talk page too. Guess no one can criticize him. Sad indeed. --Cart (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• As an admin (albeit of negligible admin activity on Commons) Poco must be open to being held accountable for his actions. It is one thing for an admin to revert vandalism or pestilent sock puppets from their talk page, but not to revert criticism from another user in good standing. This is not the correct behaviour of an admin. I hope he reconsiders his behaviour today, and reverts, or resigns. -- Colin (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• On the other hand you should not have edited their user page and you are long enough around here to know that. You have brought yourself in the situation that you are to blame is well, making it more likely that somebody will close this discussion as 'calm down both please'. Jcb (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Colin is by all means allowed to remove slandering and/or insulting remark about himself from any page including a userpage. The fact that Poco a poco has now started an editwar about that and the fact that you are defending him on that matter, is a scandal. Both of you actually should be desysopped as soon as possible. Unbelievable what I have to read here. --A.Savin 00:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agree. And Cart above is absolutely right. COM:A :"Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• agree, but not going to happen. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Jcb we have no policy that privileges user pages in any way. Commons:User pages is a rejected proposal. Poco made a statement about me that is considered a criminal offence in my country, and a personal attack and essentially blackmail against Basile and I. I guess he expected the FP community to rise up with pitchforks and come after us. The closest we have to a user page policy is on Wikipedia Wikipedia:User pages which at WP:POLEMIC warns against "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities" and "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." While there are differences between WP and COM related to articles vs media hosting, there isn't really any difference wrt the purpose of user pages. They are there to tell others about the user, not to attack others with ridiculous claims. I share A.Savin's dim view of Jcb's comments and Poco's edit warring. Neither of you deserve the admin tools.

I see A.Savin has removed the specific personal attacks from Poco's page. If Poco edit wars to restore them, or posts them elsewhere, I he should be immediately blocked for personal attacks. This is not what Commons is for, and blackmailing the community because you are upset about an oppose vote at QI or FP, and using the weight of your high quality contributions to bully others into submission, is not acceptable behaviour. I repeat my advice that Poco should take a break (from FPC at least), and when he returns, to participate as an equal with others in that forum -- reviewing as many other people's images as he gets reviews himself. -- Colin (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Colin: To be clear, you objection is against the word "harassment" by itself, yes? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The claims, previously on Poco's user page, are demonstrably and patently false, a deliberate use of inflammatory language and reference to a criminal offence. Singling out individuals for negative attack in a poster at the top of one's user page is simply not a permitted use of the project. Neither claim against either individuals named is true and both are personal attacks. Even if the statement was reduced to e.g. "I am upset with two individuals at FPC", his threat that he will no longer upload new material or that he will deliberately downsize the photos to spite Basile, is nothing less than blackmail and attempt to bully others. You might have noticed that I stand up to bullies. I also stand up to those who make false claims, as Poco has repeatedly done. -- Colin (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• May I come back to the initial path? it's funny to read that user Colin stands up to bullies refering to me. Obvious then that 1) you don't know me in person but hunderts other wikimedians do, many of them in this project 2) he seems to believe that you are over everybody here, users and admins, a kinda superhero with a C on the chest (@Jcb: that's why you waste your time, thank you anyhow, trying to teach Colin what is ok and what isn't, he will not understand the title of this section and why that actually matters). The only think I wanted to achieve when I came here was to make sure that I get enough space in this project to work in peace and if required a review on that note on my UP. I can say it louder but not more clear than this, if this user keeps on targetting me and refering to me in his long posts and never ending campaigns I see a very big risk that I indeed throw the towel and Commons never hears from me again. Please, close this request with such a resolution. As already said, I will in return be more than happy not to ping/contact/mention this user in any way. Regarding admin rights, participation on FPC, wikibreaks and other wishes, it will be who decides whether, what and when. If that's not good enough you have enough tools and processes here to try to force it. Poco² 22:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC) PD: Btw I changed the content of that note, and hope that I now hurt no feelings, but still would like to make clear that mine are.

• Don't threaten to quit, or otherwise make trouble, if you don't get your way (Don't be high-maintenance). Poco is disrupting by repeating again and again he's going to leave this project if we don't follow him. Last week, he told us good bye, just before starting to disrupt again. This sign displayed on his user page is just vandalism. The content is not true, the content is hostile, this is more an attempt to divide the community and to create conflicts between us (exactly like this one hereby provoked by himself). How to deal with a conflict ? This guy should know that. You don't need to vandalize any talk page, you just have to make the effort to discuss. Poco never made this effort with me. Instead he took the unhealthy decision to display a defamation text. Poco has ennemies here, this is what this content says in its most obvious interpretation. Two different users had to revert his own talk page because this person was doing nonsense, attacking to drain attention towards himself. Reason to attack ? Because this administrator is unable to accept contradiction. When you start to revert such kind of polite messages from people who take several minutes of their precious time to communicate, it really sounds like you are not prepared to work constructively with others. Now we are bored with disruption. The last hoax (alleged to be a mistake) was pathetic. Another example of how this user cheats with the chronology when he's not satisfied with a negative comment. Yes it's incredible, but this administrator moves his own support from the top of the list to the bottom, so as to influence the other reviewers, and to discredit the meaning of the negative review. It did not work this time, but this kind of behavior is more than ridiculous. Is it how Wikimedia works ? Is this behavior worthy of an administrator ? Petty, petty -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• User:Basile Morin, it is indeed funny to see how quick things seem to have changed. I make those words of yours mine. I have not doubt either, that you will fall back there again, I've been around for over 10 years already... --Poco² 23:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  Ridiculous whataboutism. This here is about issues with your own behaviour. You posted a libelous statement about me on your talk page, and by now there is neither an apology nor any sort of response whatsoever. I also presume, that you will under no circumstances give back your sysop bit voluntarily, as you would misuse it for threats, if needed. --A.Savin 23:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I see now Poco has modified his user page again. I'm still not overjoyed that a high traffic user page contains a polemic protest banner at all, because that's not the purpose of Commons. But right now, the net effect of the page and links is IMO very unflattering to Poco. The first link is to a page where he was found out on two previous occasions to have made hoax protests, and that his claim to be special because his camera has 50MP is found to be untrue per the laws of physics and the laws of professional-level equipment vs consumer-level equipment. The second link demonstrates to all that Poco is primarily interested in is getting gold stars on his photos, and it takes only one user opposing a picture to make this Diva go on strike or, bizarrely, threaten to downgrade the quality of any future contributions. Very unflattering indeed.

Poco, a bully by definition has to have some power he abuses over others. Whether that is their admin power to block, delete or protect, or the power that comes from being recognised as a large contributor of high quality images from around the world. You have tried to user that power here to silence two critics who have left negative reviews or have criticised your lack of community spirit at FPC. Look around you Poco. Nobody has defended you on FPC, or your talk page or here. Your protest will be as ineffective as the one you did in 2017.

You claim you want to "get enough space in this project to work in peace", but I have never interfered with your work on Commons. You are quite able to upload, describe and categorise images here, and to stick them on Wikipedia and Wikidata, without ever coming across anyone else. But FPC is a community forum, and if you offer your images for a gold star, you have to accept negative votes as well as positive. Basile has only one vote. You can note your disagreement with it on the candidate page. You can even raise the issue of changing or clarifying the rules. But what you mustn't do is blackmail reviewers by threatening to leave, withhold or downgrade your contributions to Commons. You won't find anyone here taking the bait.

The way to deal with my criticism of your contributions at FPC (endless careless nominations, frequent withdrawals and negligible voting) is, you know, to take more care when nominating, so you have fewer car-crash candidates, and to vote at least as many votes as you receive. Do you realise that every one of your withdrawals has to be processed by hand by another volunteer? When did you last thank or help them? And every review on an image that fails is time spent by others that perhaps you should have spent yourself being more critical before nominating. You are upset with Basile's negative vote. How many of Basile's nominations have you even bothered to vote on? You talk of "throwing in the towel". Are you only here to get gold stars for yourself, and not to help anyone else get recognition for their work, to improve in their photographic skills, to get advice from an experienced photographer, to help with the administrative chores that your nominations produce.

Please take a break from FPC and come back once you are prepared to participate as an equal with others, to review others' nominations, and to only nominate images you truly believe and have researched to be the finest on Commons. That's all I ask. Then we will have no cause for disagreement. -- Colin (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Colin, we can make it short and dedicate to more productive things. You write above "You claim you want to "get enough space in this project to work in peace", but I have never interfered with your work on Commons." and you seem to accept that, which should be my good right. As no admin here is willing to set such a rule, I ask yourself to commit actually not to interfere with my work on Commons. By that I mean not pinging/mentioning/contacting me, not editing my user page/talk page and not reviewing my images (the last you have managed in the last months, the other things you didn't). If you accept that I'll do the same and increase my participation in FPC (which I already did actually, but would intensify) and there may even be a bonus to that. Poco² 12:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Poco you have no right to ban anyone from reviewing your images at FPC or to censor others. Not me. Not Basile. Not Cart. Not A.Savin. And I have no interest in banning you from reviewing my images at FPC or being critical of anything I do. In a forum where people play various voluntary roles with expectations and hope that everyone gives as well as takes and where conventions and standards are perpetually up for discussion, criticism is normal.

• Here Yann moans about unfair reviews for Portrait photography
• Here A.Savin ask for more help sorting the FP galleries
• Here XRay moans about pixel peeping reviews
• Here Charles moans about single-shot photos being unfairly judged against focus stack photos
• Here Cart complains about some people adding image notes in the wrong place
• Here Basile complains about votes he thinks are in revenge or unfair
• Here Charles complains that some voters are only supporting other images because they have a current nomination
• Here Trougnouf wishes people had to get a QI before nominating at FP
• Here Cart asks people not to use fancy templates when voting
• Here I post that a blocked user has returned with a sock and is cheating
• Here Charles gets upset with The Photographer

That's all from just one FP archive page. You are looking at this through the lens of your own current dispute, which in the grand scale of things, is a little storm in a teacup. There's always discussion, criticism and praise going round at FPC. As the Americans say: "deal with it". Move on. -- Colin (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Colin I don't see the point of listing those "moans" in the last archived FPCs. That has not much to do with a long-term wikihounding from one user to another one, that is about to cause that the latter derails from the project. It is not about criticism, I can handle with that in real life and also here, as a long time (an partially extremely active) admin in es.wp I can tell. But nobody seems to care about my issue and therefore from my point of view we are at the starting point. That time bomb will keep on ticking and you have a trigger for that. Thank you all for the time invested here and sorry that it was for nothing. --Poco² 14:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because my criticism of how you participate at FPC is recognised by others (to varying degrees I'm sure). It is up to you to respond positively to that. As for the criticism from Basile, well I defended you on the nomination and suggested to Basile that his oppose was not helpful or justified here. And I have long criticised pixel peeping votes, which is shared by your moan about your 50MP camera. It is your (repeated) approach to criticism or to failing to get your way, by threatening or claiming to have resigned or diminished your contributions that has got us here. Take that Wiki guideline to heart: this approach does not work. As the guideline suggest, if you've got so wound up and annoyed about something, take a break without any fuss. Come back when you are in a happier place. If you do that, I'm more than happy to draw a line under all this and move on. -- Colin (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Poco a poco Would you like to finally take back your slander about me "having been banned several times" on your talk page? This is the only way to keep some minimum of credibility required for an admin. Already without that, you are a highly inappropriate sysop because you actually don't need any sysop bit on Commons (for FPC nomination, no admin bit is required). But should you stand up to your libelous comments, this can only mean that you as sysop are kind of a ticking time-bomb for the project. --A.Savin 14:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

There are a lot of words being used in this case, and more edits have been made on this noticeboard by the parties than elsewhere. I ran a report to find non-trivial diffs from both parties on any page apart from this one, through to the beginning of February, with relevant mentions of threat, harassment, vandal and "diva". As these are facts of who wrote what when, they may be incomplete, but of themselves are not secondary opinions:

1. 1. 2019-03-14 08:49 Commons talk:Featured picture candidates /* Empty threats */ have a great break
   2. 2019-03-12 14:04 Commons talk:Featured picture candidates /* Empty threats */ not a fancy camera
   3. 2019-03-11 15:19 Commons talk:Featured picture candidates /* behaviour on FP */ empty threats
   4. 2019-03-11 12:46 Commons talk:Featured picture candidates /* behaviour on FP */ context
   5. 2019-03-11 12:23 Commons talk:Featured picture candidates /* behaviour on FP */ re
   6. 2019-03-11 10:49 Commons:Featured picture candidates /* File:Cormorán africano (Microcarbo africanus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 48.jpg */ missing word
   7. 2019-03-11 10:49 Commons:Featured picture candidates /* File:Cormorán africano (Microcarbo africanus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 48.jpg */ grow up the pair of you
   8. 2019-03-10 12:35 Commons:Featured picture candidates /* File:Cormorán africano (Microcarbo africanus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 48.jpg */ Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point
2. 1. 2019-03-18 22:56 User:Poco a poco I hope now nobody finds 13 policies not to "allow" this redaction
   2. 2019-03-17 20:52 User:Poco a poco Undo revision 343036664 by Colin (talk) You are being judge in your own case (and show a rude behavoiur)
   3. 2019-03-17 18:50 User talk:Poco a poco /* PA on userpage */
   4. 2019-03-11 19:09 Commons talk:Featured picture candidates /* Empty threats */

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is relevant any more, and we already have links to both pages, but the list of diffs is incomplete and doesn't tell the whole story. There are far more situations over the many years we have known each other, where we have been friendly and encouraging and supportive. Focusing on negativity isn't helping here. I think Poco just needs a break.

The user page is no longer an "attack page". The purpose of the original post was largely because Poco was upset I removed it, and presumably wanted admins to agree to protect his page, or to rise up in protest against me. Two admins asked poco to remove the personal attack, and he's now modified it in a way that is more acceptable. What Poco decides to do in future is up to him and no longer requires admin intervention. I think this can be closed. -- Colin (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Poco's comment in their userpage was removed/modified. Great. Now, @Colin: , do you think referring this way to another user is OK? Regardless you "own reason" here, regardless you felt Poco accused you of a criminal offence:

So, Mr Diva, when you decide to downsize all your photos because the reviewers are too hard on your fancy camera, my heart does not bleed for you. Poco, you are not a special case, you just think you are.

This kind of hurtful messages do not help, but the very contrary: They escalate the conflict. Please avoid them. You may tone down three levels the rethorics ...and still sound derisive and condescending. Strakhov (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmm..., perhaps you need to be as loud and aggressive as Colin is in this for Poco a poco to take notice. I tried to voice my concern in a short and polite way, and I got flicked away like I was some ignorant annoying fly. --Cart (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done I blocked the user for a month and deleted speedily all his/her contributions. Taivo (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

There is an ongoing problem on the English Wikipedia with articles related to the 1980s British boy band Bros, from the serial sockpuppeter TomWatkins1970. Today another of the band's articles was put under semi-permanent protection again, just hours after having the protection lifted, because of edits from a number of IP addresses. The "proof" and sources for these IP edits are a number of scans from magazines that have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons over the last few days by a variety of "new" editors, who are almost certainly the sockpuppeter named above (indeed, two of the editors, Morganstanley1970 and LOGANRUN90, have already been banned on Wikipedia for being two of more than 70 sockpuppets (and counting) by this disruptive editor.

Today I tagged those magazine scans with {{No license since}} because they have no copyright attribution, or even say which magazine they come from. The files in question are:

• File:Bros Promo article.jpg‎
• File:Bros USA 89 ARTICLE.jpg‎
• File:Bros band related article.jpg‎
• File:Bros down Under 88.jpg‎
• File:Bros Band Charts germany Bravo.jpg‎
• File:BROS CBS Public annoucment, 1988.jpg‎

The templates were immediately removed from each file, with the edit summaries "Richard3120 a history of disruptive behaviour (completely untrue), under investigation on Wikipedia (also completely untrue) please beware of this person conduct please protect this page, this person has multiple accounts (again, also completely untrue)" [4]. Prosfilaes attempted to revert the editor, and has also been re-reverted, with the edit summaries "source accurate no copyright on this article public domain the user has no understanding public domain articles [5]" (again, a completely untrue statement in every respect). Verbcatcher has also tried reverting them, and been reverted with "UNDID AS PUBLIC DOMAIN MEAN WHEN AN ARTICLE IS PRINTED IN PUBLIC MAGAZINE THEIR NO COPYRIGHT RESTRICTION FOR PUBLIC USE PLEASE MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND COPYRIGHT TRADEMARK LAW AS I AM IPO TRAINEE SOLICITOR I KNOW MY STUFF" [6]. This is also false – the sockpuppeter has a habit of pretending to be a figure "in the know" (on Wikipedia, it's usually pretending to be someone who used to work with the band at their record label), and accusing anyone who reverts them of "vandaliusm" (their spelling and grammar is poor) and of being a sockpuppet of anyone else who reverts them.

I suspect that admins will speedily delete the offending files and block all the accounts of this editor, but please be warned that the editor in question is absolutely obsessive and simply does not care about getting blocked or following Wikipedia rules, and that another batch of "new" editors will re-upload these files within days, or as soon as any protection is lifted – quite possibly under different file names. Richard3120 (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

See the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Scans of newspaper/magazine cuttings. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done All accounts blocked, all files deleted. Obvious ducks. Could you please ask for a COM:RFCU, if not already done on the English Wikipedia. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Yann – sadly, I'm absolutely certain this won't be the last we hear of it, though. Will the Checkuser request cross over with the English Wikipedia, or should I add the accounts here on Commons to the ongoing investigation at Wikipedia? Richard3120 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: You can link to the Checkuser request at the English Wikipedia, but there may be different accounts on Commons, that's a local Checkuser request may be useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: @Verbcatcher: told you... utterly predictable File:Bros jAPAN.jpg, File:Bros article.jpg, File:Bros article 1989.jpg... there's probably more on the way. Richard3120 (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Fine, deleted and blocked again. It is much more work to upload than to delete. And we are quite a number of active admins too. Yann (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Added File:Bros Our Price records advert first Published 1988.jpg. User Heathersmalls added to CheckUser list. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

First off, the name is a problem. Second, User:Flickr2commons is mass uploading images from a Flickr account which is Flickrwashing 9/11 images. Third, this edit on Wikipedia. Can someone please block and delete all their uploads? Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Indefinite block per the misleading/confusing username and DR for all uploads. --— D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 18:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hellen Lopes dos Santos (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Uploads and reuploads the same deleted copyrighted files. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked 1989 (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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

I suggest immediate and permanent block in view of these three edits.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Right. Yann (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia日本語版で投稿ブロック依頼に基づいてHalowandさんにより無期限ブロック(アカウント作成も禁止、自分の会話ページも編集禁止)されたので、ウィキメディア・コモンズにも正信方の投稿ブロック依頼を提出しました。Sorry,Japanese only.--Naomi2319 (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Comment The user does not appear to have made any contributions here, nor does the block on jaWP seem to have anything to do with images or other media.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Comment LTA?--Naomi2319 (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Mediafreak22 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Everything is copyvio and out of scope. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Which resolution had File:Geetanjali Singh 002.jpg (hist • logs • abuse log)? If better than 590 × 587 at m.media-amazon.com (img src= from IMDB), then the user is probably right that shot the photos himself. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Certainly not. This is clearly copied from IMDB, or elsewhere. Yann (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Jp04pabebr (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues copyvios after block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Second block, 3 months, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Continues copyvio out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Эlcobbola _talk 23:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Using talk page for commercial use, also see uploads.--BevinKacon (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done User page cleaned. --— D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 00:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Hi,

I think that CoffeeEngineer's imports are litigious with the template {{PD-US-no notice}}. There are pre-1977 magazine covers and I strongly presume that this at least violates the spirit of the PD-US-no notice. Can an administrator tell me if he is in his right or if this kind of import falls under copyvio ?--Sismarinho le blasé (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

do you have any evidence about the copyright status of "inside wrestling magazine"? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Magazine copyrights are generally on an inside page, not on the cover. The uploader has made the assertion that the cover images are freely licensed. It is the responsibility of the uploader to provide some basis for their claim, not up to Sismarinho. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

OK.--Sismarinho le blasé (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I believe that all of those magazine images are copyright violations. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello All, And you are telling me that after more than 250 photos and more than one month and half of intensive work? Is it a joke? Of course I will ask for deletion for MOST of them, but I find it hard to swallow, espacially because I tried to fill the gaps of which have no pictures, and me not trying to hide it. Please come back to me if you have other queries. Best regards,--CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm telling you that I believe they are copyright violations. Slowking4 probably disagrees. Do you have any reason to believe that the covers and images in these wrestling magazines are in the public domain? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No, none ANYMORE, now that somebody, you, told me that it is not compliant, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/fd/20190317142250%21Ivan_Koloff_-_AWA_Wrestling_-_n.59_1971_cover.jpg (secondary file of Ivan Kiloff), as the copyright is in the summary for AWA Wrestling News, I will look for other clues. Please lauch a request of deletion for all the pictures for this magazine. Best regards, --CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC) PS: Not all are not in public domain as per sources. PPS: can we be sure that the copyright in the magazines applies in these images?

The Wrestler does not seem to have a copyright notice --CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "does not seem to have a copyright notice"? Do you mean you have looked through a physical copy of the magazine and didn't find one? Or that you didn't see a scan of a page with a copyright notice? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@World's Lamest Critic: My bad, I forgot to put the url : [scan]. I hope it can help.--CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@CoffeeEngineer: On page 4 of the scanned magazine it says "No part of this magazine can be reproduced without written permission of the publisher. All rights reserved". World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that counts as a proper copyright notice per Copyright Notice (Circular 3) and 37 C.F.R. § 202.2. This would likely be okay on Commons with {{PD-US-defective notice}}. clpo13_(talk) 22:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It is important to point out that we are talking about an incomplete scan of one issue of the magazine. There may be a copyright notice on one of the missing pages. It is clear from what we can see that it was not the publisher's intention to release this into the public domain. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Intent doesn't matter. If they didn't comply with the formalities, they lost their claim. FWIW, it doesn't look like there is any registration for The Wrestler recorded in the 1977 copyright registration volume at [10]. clpo13_(talk) 22:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed on the first point and, @World's Lamest Critic, where else would they put a copyright notice but the masthead (or perhaps the cover)? It seems a stretch of COM:PCP to delete on the basis that there might be a compliant notice hidden somewhere in addition to the defective one that’s exactly where one would expect to find it.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

While I would expect that the masthead is the most likely place to see a copyright notice, I have seen them elsewhere (probably for layout or space reasons). I am not willing to assume that there was no copyright notice based on an incomplete scan of a single magazine. I'm not suggesting we delete them, just that it isn't yet clear that these are in the public domain. (On the other hand, I am suggesting we delete the images from AWA Wrestling News, which was also assumed to have no copyright notice until one was found.) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Related DR is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ivan Koloff - AWA Wrestling - n.59 1971 cover.jpg. Yann (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe an admin could go ahead and delete all the AWA Wrestling News images now that copyright has been established? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Obvious sock puppets of User:MilanThaiTlach302003/en:User:Milantlach (early Milantlach socks didn't bother to create a Commons account):

• MilanThaiTlach200786 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• MilanThaiTlach30495 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• MilanThaiTlach495342 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

He's a vandal from English Wikipedia who likes to spread hoaxes and upload copyright violations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done All 3 blocked, all files already deleted. Yann (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Singlejo80 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Please read Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Uploads of magazine scans related to Bros above + accusation of vandalism. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done - confirmed Luckyluke90 sock. Эlcobbola _talk 12:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Legacies-52 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Done Uploads deleted and user blocked for a week. Further blatant copyvios will result in an indef block. De728631 (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I have a disagreement with User:Tris T7 over at Category talk:Supported by Wikimedia Österreich. Tris T7 has copied several thousands of files to new, arbitrary subcategories without prior discussion, and although I raised this could be problmeatic/disruptive, they keep doing it. As I’m having increasingly hard time understanding their purpose here (and franky, getting a bit annoyed too), and as I’m not sure I’m doing a good job communicating with the user, I would be grateful if someone else could give some fresh eyes on the topic and weigh in (one way or another, maybe it’s me who’s over-reacting here ^_^) the discussion.

Thanks! Jean-Fred (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi

I have stopped doing https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bicycles_and_All_Tools_for_Bicycles_Supported_by_Wikimedia_Österreich for past 2 weeks so i am not sure about this discussion is still necessary or not? Also i have not see any discussion on Category:Bicycles_and_All_Tools_for_Bicycles_Supported_by_Wikimedia_Österreich

As you can see my babel i am Photographer in Thailand and listed in group of commons Photographer. By Grouping Sport images, Vehicles images, Train images, People images and Bicycle images because i would like to use many of images for articles in Thailand. and reason i selected images from Chapter because many are quality photos.

I also mentioned if i did it wrong please provide me some instruction or guideline but so far still waiting from admin to provide instruction for it.

I will also give example here from Category:Supported by Wikimedia Deutschland there are over 5xx,xxx images if i would like just images of music festival from this 5xx,xxx images

what is the way to access to them without creating Category:Music Festivals supported by Wikimedia Chapter and Category:Music Festivals Supported by Wikimedia Deutschland  ?

please kindly let me know if you could.

Thank you in advances for support..

if you think talk page are convenience please support by leave some comment to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk_pages_consultation_2019/Participant_group_sign-up/th

..Tris T7 23:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I also completed Category:Train_images_Supported_by_Wikimedia_Österreich So if we can get consensus that it is not necessary Category please kindly provide instruction to revert all files from this Category my knowledge about this is use tools to remove specific Category out of all of those files. but if there are better way to redo it (after conclusion) then please kindly let me learn about it so i can use them to improve education website that me and my team creating. Thank you for your kind support..Tris T7 13:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tris T7: Kindly link your user page or user talk page in your signature to effectively enable pinging and mentioning.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Dear Jeff G. Thank you for info and yes i am trying to add this code into signature at Preferences but it did not show as this Tris T7 ^{TT me} Do you have the way that i can use this signature when i insert signature tools.. Thank you..Tris T7 13:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tris T7: Yes, please see the "Signature" section of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Great Thank you so much i have tried several code but it did not work until now So now perhaps kindly add some comment about subject above so we can have some more comment and move to next stage for consensus i am trying to invite Stewards to comment about this as well and my purpose is if user who make mistake they should be person who fix it not others so on this case i want to learn and i am begging for correct way to process if it need. So until then i hope none of respective admins would edit or modify them until consensus shown. I will also agreed not to add more relate Category until confirmation. So if you can remove notice tag out of my user i would appreciate for kind support.. Best regards...Tris T7 (TT me) 13:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tris T7: Which "notice tag"?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Dear Jeff sorry for late reply. Since Thailand going to have elections by 24 March 2019 so I got so many things I have to handle as . And to answer your question is the section of reminding notice when I click Sourcing Edit as before last few weeks it shown only 1 notice. But now I am not sure why now when i click Sourcing Edit it showing 3 notices. So how do I request to remove those notice messages? or Can you please remove them out As I do believe I did not do anything out of policy scope. Thank you...Regards..Tris T7 ^{TT me} 23:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tris T7: Where do you see "Sourcing Edit"? On what page does the "section of reminding notice" appear? Is this happening in English or your native language? Can you please be more specific, and maybe paste a copy or upload a screenshot?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 04:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• I unfortunately have little time right now to follow up on this ; would someone else kind enough to take over? Thanks in advance, Jean-Fred (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

They created new images which are potentially copyvio I DR one already. In the images English description, lots of links which are spammy. FOREX and even porn sites. Seeking some action. Thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cohaf: See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TiwariG0.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 04:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Auntof6 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• GT1976 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:IMG-20180130-WA0019.jpg&action=history&offset=2019032510&limit=4

These two heavy Cat-a-lot users are evidently unwilling to negotiate a solution between themselves. Please, deter at least one of them from dumping such a stubborn waste into Recent Changes, as well as to my watchlist. I’m currently too busy to preach or educate. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that we were undoing each other's changes. I just look for files that are in categories under Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion to zero (such as Category:Photographs of women), and move them to categories that can contain files. With only four sets of changes between us, and separated by at least a week each time, I wouldn't have thought this warranted a report here without saying something to us first. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your information. There is a discussion in my User talk. --GT1976 (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Continues copyvios after block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Second block, nothing but copyvios, 3 months. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Filipino Idiotor and his sock accounts, which apparently controlled by a person with "Francis Baraan IV", keep on creating article or draft about himself, or his father in en-wiki, as well as uploading selfie of himself.

Now, a new sock user:DonSanchez747 uploaded File:Francis Baraan IV.jpg again, which was deleted (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Francis Baraan IV.jpg or other file under different file name in User talk:Filipino Idiotor)

Matthew hk (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef., all files deleted. Yann (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Continues copyvio after block. Flickwashing too. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Second block, nothing but copyvios, 3 months. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Spillover vandalism from enwiki, see File:Wolfhound Irish Brigade monument Gettysburg PA1.jpg history, needs a block for a week or so. Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done --jdx ^Re: 01:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Fantasy2018 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

• This user has already had, by my count, 14 images deleted, all apparently low quality dick picks, and it appears they've returned again, for no other reason other than to upload more dick picks for us to delete. I'm not convinced this user is an asset to the community until such a point that they decide to upload actually useful content, rather than using Commons as a vehicle for exhibitionism. GMG^talk 12:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Jaheen3alam (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Everything is copyvio. Continues and even recreates deleted files despite warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done All copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• User: Alaa dfgh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: The user still uploading Copyvio files after the last warning due to all of this files --Alaa :)..! 14:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
•  blocked for 1 month. — D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 14:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I uploaded this photo under Jason Linder name on Wikimedia Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jason-linder_DSC07828.jpg

Jason Linder has e-mailed me and told me that Nicholas Semrad subbed for him on that special occasion. So now I want to delete the file Jason-linder_DSC07828.jpg from Wikimedia Commons but I don't know how, can anybody help?

Best Regards Hreinn Gudlaugsson

@Hreinn Gudlaugsson: You cannot delete files yourself. Only admins can do that. However, you may nominate the file for deletion by clicking on "Nominate for deletion" on the left sidebar. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done by Yann. --Túrelio (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Faghag has uploaded two images of a named person which are being used for vandalism on English Wikipedia. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked indefinitely by User:Pi.1415926535. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I suppose he is not trying to have so many problems but I randomly clicked on the user page and it was a STREAM of deleted photos for copyright violation. Someone should look into trying to contact user about changing behavior or something? I'm not sure how that works just thought I would say something: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%E6%B1%9F%E6%88%B8%E6%9D%91%E3%81%AE%E3%81%A8%E3%81%8F%E3%81%9E%E3%81%86

Nesnad (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ffwiki22 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• NeelixIT (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Ffwiki22 is abusing multiple accounts to upload already deleted files by NeelixIT related to it:Francesco Franchi. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Both blocked. Yann (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Xerneasthebest has started creating categories for Pokemon characters. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Female midriff2.jpg. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed as clearly NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Sanket surve account only for advertising. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Notwithstanding any other problems, we allow contributors to have images of themselves on their user pages. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

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

User changed his name but it's still copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked for one month. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Only out of scope images. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done More copyvios than strictly OOS, but not a good contributor nonetheless. Blocked for three months. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

What? Somebody claiming to be Patrick Rogel apparently used the section=new (a.k.a. [+]) thing to post to a noticeboard (note the edit summary). Perhaps, CheckUsers should look whether the account is compromised. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hoang42006 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

The user, already having a plentiful copyvio record (see also delreq), evidently does not intend to take Commons:Licensing seriously – «Ảnh sưu tầm từ internet» means “images collected from Internet”. May we block ’em for the time being? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Numerous warnings. Blocked for a week. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I draw your attention to the fact that for a few weeks the Huldra carries out hundreds of renaming and modification of files to remove everywhere in a systematic way the name "Israel" and replace it with the name "Palestine". I think this behavior is not acceptable. May be remembered what is indicated in: Commons: Disputed territories A double categorization would be acceptable but not to replace one by the other. It seems to me particularly unacceptable to change the name and the original description of a file, against the advice of the uploader himself, which is the case here: the uploader User:Godot13 complained to Huldra on his discussion page, but without result Djampa (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The changes are extensive. In some cases user categories and uploaded original descriptions are having "Israel" changed to "Palestine" in apparent contentious ways without reference to an existing consensus, such as moving the content of Category:User:Mattes/Contributions/Topics/Israel to Category:User:Mattes/Contributions/Topics/Palestine. The changes below are for the last month alone.

Clearly, mass changes of "Israel" to "Palestine" require a consensus, especially for historic photographs where the original descriptions say otherwise. --Fæ (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

These are not simplistic "mass changes". They're historical images of the Middle East, at times when Palestine and Jordan are the correct terms to apply. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly unacceptable. See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 73#Israel to Palestine.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 09:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• There's a thread about this at Category talk:Photographs by Willem van de Poll#Israel. Djampa has repeatedly been invited to take part in the discussion, but has ignored it. User talk:Djampa#Bulk categorization reversions of Willem van de Poll photographs in East Jerusalem Instead they preferred to issue warnings to people: User talk:Andy Dingley#Commons:Disputed territories They were invited just yesterday to join it again, after their latest batch of reversions, but their response instead has been this fake complaint of "vandalism".

My involvement with this has only been with the Willem van de Poll content in Photographs by Willem van de Poll and below. Tens of thousands of photographs to organise, which has been progressing fairly well and with a remarkable absence of dispute, until now. Several editors have been involved, and those most familiar with particular countries have been working on particular aspects (anyone knowledgeable about revolutions in what is now Indonesia in the late 1940s would be much appreciated). Djampa's reversions have been to revert all categorization and to return photos to the simple "Photographs by Willem van de Poll" starting point – far from constructive. [11] [12]

The historical categorization of Jerusalem images is obviously fraught. I've done little of this myself, as I know that I don't know the boundary changes and dates offhand. Huldra seems to know more about this than I do. It's entirely possible that they've made mistakes in these, even that they're some terrible POV-pusher inserting deliberate errors (I have no reason to think so, but we know that such edits do go on). However if there are any such errors needing correction, the way to go about that is to raise it on the relevant talk: page first and clarify the precise problem (if one street was in Jordan until a particular date, then we can source that and go forwards accurately with such information). So far any such discussion has been cordial and reasonable. Any questions have been addressed and acted on – but Djampa has ignored all of this.

The way to react is emphatically not to bulk revert (way past the contentious issue), to repeatedly edit-war, to refuse to engage in discussion, to throw around vacuous warnings and then to raise false claims of "vandalism" here. Djampa's actions are not acceptable, and we're getting to a point where blocking is appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

With mass changes that are likely to be seen as contentious or "obviously fraught", the edit comment should link to either a project page or a consensus that supports the specific mass changes. Edit comments which vaguely refer to an authority of the "international community" or just say "correction" or "nope" are not sufficient. In your rebuttal, you refer to your talk page as the locus for community discussion, that does not appear a good solution. Please create a community discussion or a proposal to back up these mass changes so that future complaints can be rebutted with a convincing established and wide community consensus, especially for historic images like those above taken in the 1950s, where 1950s terminology should be respected, rather than the most recent views of an "international community". Mass changes to user defined user categories should be avoided in all cases, retrospective renaming and redirects seem argumentative unless a community consensus agrees that the existence of the original user categories is against policy.

It may be worth establishing a consensus for Commons:Disputed territories, and elevating it from an informal essay to an essay backed up with a community consensus that this will be the norm for disputes on this topic.

Though the complaint of "vandalism" may not be valid, the basic complaint raised here is worth paying attention to and should be responded to in a way that decreases the drama for future mass changes. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but have you paid the slightest attention to anything going on here?

Which "1950s images"? They're 1940s and 1960s. This doesn't change much (although actually it does), but that sort of comment reinforces a suspicion that you're knee-jerking, rather than actually looking at the details. When you claim, "you refer to your talk page as the locus for community discussion" (no, no-one said any such thing) then yes, you really are just not paying attention.

This is not a simple "mass change". It's not even a "change", it's an addition in a previous absence of any categorization. It's a carefully thought out and historically accurate description of specific and dated images, within the context of the changes in effect at those times. If anyone has anything constructive to add to such a discussion, then please do at the relevant talk: page: Category talk:Photographs by Willem van de Poll#Israel. But neither you nor Djampa seem interested in such, just making up false allegations. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Andy, focus on the evidence please, rather than what you think is the evidence.

There are over 400 diffs above, clearly files like Church of the Holy Sepulchre are nothing to do with "Photographs by Willem van de Poll", so criticising everyone else for daring to discuss these edits here, rather than on the Willem van de Poll talk page, is bizarre.

Your claim that "it's an addition in a previous absence of any categorization" is demonstrably false. Please examine the evidence above.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

As noted, I'm only here for the Van de Poll stuff. I commented last night, to dissuade Huldra from filing a (justified) edit-warring complaint aganst Djampa suggesting that we give them another day to join the discussion. They haven't, instead they filed this pre-emptive "vandalism" complaint, which you seem happy to join in with.

Now that you've brought up the page move, it's from the contentious "Jerusalem, Israel" to "Jerusalem" alone. Which is just what Commons:Disputed territories §2 recommends. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Why do you think I recommend that if you and Huldra wish to continue with these systematic mass changes of Israel to Palestine in descriptions, filenames and categories across Wikimedia Commons, then you must:

1. Establish a credible and wide consensus for the changes, possibly using Commons:Disputed territories as the proposal
2. Ensure that all future changes refer to that consensus to avoid repeated disruptive disputes

However if you prefer setting bear traps by making apparently controversial changes with comments like "nope", arguing the toss ad infinitum, and disrupting this project to prove a point, you carry on.

By the way, please avoid cherry-picking changes giving a false impression of 'non-contentiousness'. Literally seconds after the edit you quoted trying to prove that these changes were undramatic change of "Jerusalem, Israel" to "Jerusalem", this change to the same image page by Huldra changed the location in Category:Statues of Mater dolorosa in Israel to Category:Statues of Mater dolorosa in Palestine. If the intent was to only make non-contentious changes then you would agree to make neutrally worded categories to move to. --Fæ (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Cherry picking? I cited the file that you gave.

I'm also (still) waiting for any constructive input from either you or Djampa at the discussion thread (open for over a week now). All we get instead is edit-warring and false accusations of vandalism. Why are you (who has been here long enough to know better) supporting that? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Take some time out.

Read the "constructive input" I have written here, rather than the "false accusations" you think I have written.

Stick to the evidence and consider taking action to resolve the dispute rather than entering war games of allegations and counter allegations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the one making allegations of "vandalism". And as someone with an awful reputation for inciting drama in every possible situation, just why are you even here? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I have a great reputation for resolving difficult disputes. Stick to the evidence please, avoid making more unpleasantly personal ad hominem attacks. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Djampa, why are you complaining of changes like this: [13], replacing "Jerusalem, Israel" with "Jerusalem"? And then citing Commons:Disputed territories to "back you up"? Firstly, that's an essay, not even an accepted guideline, and certainly not binding policy. Secondly, §2 of that specifically supports this change, "Categorization should either be neutral (ideally), or double. ". i.e. If "Jerusalem" is adequate and unambiguous, then use "Jerusalem" rather than the potentially contentious "Jerusalem, Israel". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ok, so there are (at least) three issues here:
  • 1. Pictures, taken by van de Poll before 1967 in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and moving them from "Israel" to East Jerusalem, or to various West Bank Governates. This is what we have discussed at Category talk:Photographs by Willem van de Poll, and this should be 100% uncontroversial, still Djampa has undone me twice, without taking part of the discussion. I find this unacceptable. (For those of you unfamiliar with the issue: between 1948 and 1967 the West Bank, including East Jerusalem was ruled by Jordan. This is undisputed. After 1967, the same areas have been occupied by Israel. Israel has unilaterally annexed part of East Jerusalem (but NOT the rest of the West Bank); alas, that annexation is recognized by 0 other states.)
  • 2. Pictures, taken in East Jerusalem after 1967. Many, many of those were labeled "Israel" (a notion which NO nation, ecept Israel, accepts.) I moved some of them to "Palestine", but after that was challenged I have moved them to "Jerusalem" or "East Jerusalem". This should be uncontroversial. (I would claim that "East Jerusalem, Palestine" would be 99% correct, alas, that is not 100%, so better without);
  • 3. Pictures, taken in the West Bank outside East Jerusalem, (say, in Bethlehem, or Hebron), after 1967. These are areas under military occupation, but they are NOT annexed by Israel. Ie, not even the Israeli govenment says that it is part of Israel. It should be completely uncontroversial to say that they are in Palestine, or Palestinian territories, (and 100% WRONG to write "Hebron, Israel" etc). Huldra (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• I hope we can come to some solution, at least so that I can rv Djampa (for the 3rd time), without risking seeing it undone. (Most of Djampas changes was in no. 1 category). As I said, no 1 and 3 categories should be easily resolved, no 2, "East Jerusalem post 1967", is less so. Perhaps we should open a special discussion just for that, Huldra (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Also, when User:מרינה רינה ודינה and User:בנימין שמלץ adds "Category:Photographs by Willem van de Poll in Jerusalem, Israel" to the "Category:Photographs by Willem van de Poll in East Jerusalem", here and here, then this is complletely FALSE. All the photos in this cat was taken between 1948 and 1967, a time when East Jerusalem was undisputed Jordanian territory, Huldra (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, The 3 points above look fine to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

In the example file File:PikiWiki Israel 30800 Religion in Israel.jpg which has been moved by Huldra to File:PikiWiki Palestine 30800 Religion in Palestine.jpg, changes to the image page have included changing "Israel" to "Palestine" in the original description and changing the CC-BY-2.5 attribution requirement from "lehava nazareth Pikiwiki Israel" to "lehava nazareth Pikiwiki" diff. Correcting the text can be argued about, but changing a correctly worded attribution statement, made by the uploader Pikiwikisrael 6 years ago, is unacceptable. There are several similar changes like this in the last month, as shown in the diff list above. Information about the "Pikiwiki Israel" joint project is available here.

There is no "PikiWiki Palestine" project, so the file move was mistaken and the moves should be reverted.

Invalidating an attribution in a copyright release may be accidental or thoughtless, but the fact is that it is equivalent to vandalism, and all changes like this need to be reverted. --Fæ (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Fæ, to name a place in Bethlehem for "Religion in Israel" is extremely provocative. From my understanding it is uploaded by the en:Lehava organisation. Huldra (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, so what? That has nothing to do with the issue I have raised in this thread. If you want to change text per an existing consensus, establish the consensus and then make the change referring to that consensus.

Please stick to the single point being made in this thread, that "PikiWiki Israel" was the name of the joint project which should stay in the filenames and should stay in the legal release statement as an attribution. If you think that those have been incorrectly hosted here for the last six years, then establish a consensus to purge "PikiWiki Israel". Mucking up attribution statements, then creating tangents here to avoid addressing the issue, is starting to look like deliberate disruption.

If you believe that a WMF funded chapter has been partnering with a far right political organization, this is not the place to raise your concerns. Raise the matter with WMF Legal and stop editing the files.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven’t followed the larger dispute, but on this point I feel quite strongly that it should never be acceptable for anyone but the licensor to alter the attribution in a CC licence that contains BY terms: titles, descriptions, disclaimers, &c. are negotiable but not the licence. If it’s seriously offensive or misleading, better to nominate it for deletion than to misrepresent the licensor.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Huldra (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC) (I also hope you will comment on my 3 differnt types of photos above, and how to treat them, Huldra (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC))

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: COM:BLOCK says that we need to warn a user before blocking them. This hasn't happened - they have only had notifications of possible deletions and your ANU notification. I am going to give them a final warning Gbawden (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done User warned Gbawden (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Abusing multiple accounts. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Ffwiki22. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Gbawden (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Continues copyvios and flickrwashing after block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 2 weeks Gbawden (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I nominated a couple of images from User:Activeofficecleaningsydney for speedy deletion as advertising. A brand new user (User:Cafe2007) then arrived to convert the speedy deletions into regular delete discussions. Meanwhile Activeofficecleaningsydney started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pro Housekeepers.png for a rival(?) cleaning company logo. Then an IP arrived to change the signature from Activeofficecleaningsydney to the much less suspicious "TroyD". Can someone speedy all of the files involved and block all of the accounts involved (and the IP) while you're at it? Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done All blocked. All files deleted. Clearly not here to contribute. Yann (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)