Open main menu

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard(Redirected from Commons:AN/U)

Shortcut: COM:AN/U · COM:ANU

Community portal
Help deskVillage pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email

[new report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.

Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.

Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.

Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1


  • 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.
  • It is usually appropriate to 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:ديفيد_عادل_وهبة_خليل_2 and the licensing policyEdit

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2} having voluntarily commited to the terms of the proposition below, no further action taken. He is now liable to his commitments. — Racconish💬 17:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

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


Repeated attempts to delete own works by Commons users, or works ineligible for copyright at all, e.g. Revision of File:Кривая Минковского.png, Revision of File:Штамп прямоугольника 1.png. Anyone trying to lecture the user via his (or other) user_talk meets frivolous replies, sometimes also deletion requests not based on evidence; all conduct indicates an unbearable weakness of judgement. For instance, this photographer, working for decades, in ديفيد…’s opinion uploads photos which

are historical and seem to be from the internet and not "Own work"

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Revision of User_talk:Kynnap

(emphasis mine)
I see they need to Confirm via OTRS

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Revision of User_talk:Kynnap

Without verifiable arguments, of course. This isn’t staunchly Incnis Mrsi’s cause; multiple experienced Commoners such as Polimerek, Billinghurst, Alexis Jazz, Roy17, Racconish and few others already are involved to some extent.


Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2019 – 15:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

And a fresh revelation:
the images are old and the author is not the uploader

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Revision of User_talk:Aberdonian99

as a reply to my query about File:Adam Roberts, Oxford, April 2006.JPG specifically. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


Based on the facts established above, I hereby propose the following editing restriction as a remedy.

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 is not allowed to use:

  1. any speedy deletion procedure related to licensing,
  2. any “no … since” thing,

unless the rights holder for the file in question is indicated explicitly and verifiably.

Expires: after 1 year
Appeal: after 3 months

Explanation of terms

Speedy deletion related to licensing includes criteria F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, as well as G4 for cases related to licensing. Templates which ديفيد… may not use in the namespace 6 include {{fair use}}, {{permission}}, {{screenshot}}, and those similarly stating that the file is non-free. ديفيد… may use {{copyvio}} only specifying the presumed source, which in turn can be verified without much effort.

“No … since” things include {{no permission since}}, {{no OTRS permission since}}, {{no source since}}, and {{no license since}}. They may include any other tag potentially leading to deletion without discussion.

Explicit indication of the rights holder include cases of a copyright notice on the linked Web page, but may not require any deep inquiry or guesswork by the deleting sysop.

This editing restriction is short of a topic ban. It does not hamper ديفيد…’s ability to nominate files for regular deletion, ask authors about source(s) on their user_talk (albeit without use of {{image permission}} message boxes), or participate in relevant discussions. Tagging evident (that is, having source links dated before Wikimedia upload) copyvio, or using {{subst:npd}} for files manifestly from external sources, are permitted as well.


Any Wikimedian may use rollback and similar tools against edits in the namespace 6 (File:) satisfying conditions of the restriction. Related sections in the namespace 3 (User_talk:) should be blanked (with a sensible edit summary) if contain only ديفيد…’s postings; otherwise a link to this restriction should be posted. Repeated infractions may lead to blocks and loss of other privileges.

Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi:I can stop using these templates forever but is there an alternative to objecting to images? ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Yes, posts on uploaders' user talk pages and COM:DR.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2's (from here on to be called "David") comment on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Владислав Молдован which was made after the events on User talk:ديفيد_عادل_وهبة_خليل_2#CV claims sadly tells me David doesn't understand his mistakes. Not understanding them, he's currently unable to avoid them in the future. Because of that, I Symbol support vote.svg Support this proposal. David can raise DRs instead where he feels the need. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To be honest, having COM:DR flooded with bad-motivated requests is not good either. Uploading pictures, creating categories... is nice work. Creating 30 competence-lacking DR's per day... isn't. Strakhov (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    My hope is that David will get, at last, that doing bad deletion requests could eventually leave him without access to regular deletion as well. It is easier to tighten an existing restriction rather than to enact a restriction from scratch, upon a user deemed “established” and “in good standing”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Strakhov: are you suggesting to also include DRs in the proposed edit restriction? I think if David starts to produce many competence-lacking DRs, DRs could be added to the edit restriction. Or they could be included from the start. I have no problem with either way. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Neither do I. Strakhov (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on the thought processEdit

  • Questions. Incnis Mrsi, has this behaviour been discussed before ? ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, can you please explain your thought process for [1] and [2] which postdate the start of the current discussion in general and this in particular ? Thanks, — Racconish💬 16:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    One of early such incidents happened to File:Daht Abstract Poet in class.jpg (histlogsabuse log); there was a sort of “discussion” (Yann-style) on user_talk:ديفيد_عادل_وهبة_خليل_2 #Warning_2. Complains about abuses of {{copyvio}} and “no … since” were abundant during the last few months, some on user_talk:ديفيد… and on user_talk of harassed authors as well. Perhaps Sealle can add more about conflicts in November, 2018 – I am too lazy to dig there, myself. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    It seems to me we are dealing with two different situations here, inappropriate regular nominations for deletions and inappropriately vaguely motivated nominations for speedy deletion. I suggest we should focus on the second ones for the time being, since they are those who relate to the discussed proposal. In that respect, I don't consider Yann and Sealle warnings to be relevant, as they were related to deletion proposals. Examples of discussions with ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 on cases related to the second category would be clarifying. — Racconish💬 17:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    Again, Revision of File:Daht_Abstract_Poet_in_class.jpg was namely a wrongful speedy deletion attempt. I feel tired of repeating verbally all the things visible via one or two hypertext hops. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yes and no. I agree the use of {{copyvio}} was unsubstantiated, but it seems to me no guideline was given to the user further to his questions here. Is there for example a case where he was explained he should not claim there is a copyvio without explaining why he thinks so? On the other hand, I am surprised ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 has reproduced the same pattern of behaviour after your complaint above, which is why I asked for his explanation. — Racconish💬 18:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    I can’t understand current point of the contention. The user is here for more than one year, edits Wikipedia as well and certainly knows that such thing as project: Criteria for speedy deletion exists. As for “without explaining why he thinks so” – goddamn, again Incnis Mrsi has to repeat stuff. “From somewhere online. I see they need to Confirm via OTRS”, said 34 hours ago. There is no difference between problems with {{copyvio}} and “no … since” if the user persists in that mindset. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, please respond to the questions above and here. — Racconish💬 09:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I find that many users do not like my edits, which question exactly? ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, can you please explain your thought process for tagging as {{no permission}} File:Adam Roberts, Oxford, April 2006.JPG after the start of the current discusssion? With reference to the non deleted files at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Владислав Молдован, can you please explain precisely why you considered these to be {{fair use}}? With reference to File:高音の奏法.jpg, File:低音奏法と高音奏法.jpg and File:低音の奏法.jpg, why exactly did you propose them for speedy deletion as {{no permission}}? More broadly: what do you take from the problems raised here - aside from other contributors possibly not liking your edits - and how do you propose to deal with it? Thanks, — Racconish💬 09:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Jcb and no source taggingEdit

Let it be clear that while I see this as a problem, I'm not seeking punitive action. The issue should be discussed though, I think.

Jcb tagged a bunch of images uploaded by SecretName101 as "no source since", like File:Frederick William Mansfield (1).png. Thing is, those files do have a source. It's.. in the description. But it's there. On the assumption of good faith, I assumed Jcb had overlooked that and pointed that out to him. In response, Jcb doubled down and "no source" tagged some more of SecretName101's uploads.

And he responded: "If your transfers end up e.g. in Category:Images without source, you can expect a 'no source' tagging."

If SecretName101 were on vacation or retired and their talk page wasn't on my watchlist, these files may end up deleted. In fact, SecretName101's uploads are extracted from files uploaded by Fastily like File:Frederick William Mansfield.png. Those are also at risk, but strangely, Jcb didn't tag them.

This isn't really new. Magog the Ogre had a conflict over the same thing when a script he used wiped the source field, resulting in deletion. Ankry didn't understand the tagging either. And around the same time, File:Lizhongren.jpg was nominated for deletion by Jcb because OgreBot 2 had wiped the source field.

If we wanted this, we'd insert {{no source since}} in {{Source missing}}. Is that what we want? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

SecretName101 is responsible for not creating a mess when uploading files. The tags are for if they do, so that they can fix their own mess, which they already did for most of the files, demonstrating that the tags are effective. Alexis Jazz on his turn, is quite disruptive. From the moment they came back from a few month of absence, they have not stopped stalking me. I think most active users are well aware of there never ending campaign against me. In the months that Alexis Jazz was absent, the working environment at Commons was much better. Unfortunately they came back to flood us with drama again. Jcb (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The files are still in Category:Media lacking author information after the fix, so at some point you'll just tag them again. The tagging isn't that effective: you could have simply asked SecretName101 to patch up their files without any imminent threat of deletion of public domain content. And when someone doesn't respond for whatever reason, you do follow through and delete free content. And that damages Commons, at least in my opinion. I'd like to see you apologize for your neverending accusations of stalking. I'm not stalking you, and I'm lost for words regarding this personal attack. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
It is probably worth reminding everyone what COM:Administrators does not say:
  1. Administrators are not required to delete public domain files that they clearly know are public domain
  2. Administrators are not required to flag files with sources neatly described with a source as "no source", even where the optional information template does not have a "source" parameter filled in
  3. Administrators are not required to respond to valid complaints about their conduct by attacking the complainant or to create tangents with unsourced allegations of misconduct
Thanks -- (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for finding this issue and for fixing it, @Alexis Jazz: It pains me to see this attitude toweards uploaders — that they are responsible for their files and if they forget / overlook… well too bad and nobody else should care. That’s clearly against the COM:NOTHOST principle and illustrates the problem of admins reducing themselves to the role of bot-with-a-mop, leaving aside the fundamental notion that every admin is also a user and users are here to create a free media repository, and therefore should care not to delete files that are in scope and in public domain.
This section is a textbook case of a wider problem in Commons, too: One about people who should not be admins and yet are allowed to go on, and, for other people, the very opposite situation.
-- Tuválkin 11:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

In this case the cropped image was watched by an active user, but the File:Frederick William Mansfield.png original could easily have been tagged too. I think we need the community to decide whether having missing/empty source parameter should require automatic deletion after 7 days of noticing by an Admin, even if the account (FastilyClone) has not edited for two years and the image was uploaded three years ago. Or whether we require the Admin to investigate if source information is available elsewhere in the page or can otherwise be easily obtained. User:Jcb we have had this problem before with tagging that causes a speedy delete where the only person watching a file is long gone or was so bot transfer tool or otherwise not going to be actioned. I think we should have a community opinion on this that all admins can be held to, and the appropriate tag be documented as to what is agreed. For what it is worth, I don't think it is acceptable to tag an image merely for being in a maintenance category -- I expect admins to make a bit more of an effort to save images, or at very least, attempt to make contact with the uploader. Deleting an image we have hosted for 3 years does not require a 7 day urgency. If we have this category, can we not have a bot send a message to the uploaders -- such a bot would have notified the uploader three years ago. -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

A bot that tags new uploads with empty information fields would be a good idea. In practice, new files in e.g. Category:Images without source are flooded into this category sometimes with more than 100 at a time by a handful of users who repeatedly refuse to check their own uploads/transfers. Please be aware that the owner of FastilyClone has been active just a few days ago and that another of their upload accounts has been blocked in 2017 for this exact issue. The block was discussed at the time and not a single admin saw reason for an unblock. So as early as 2017 at least there was some consensus that mass transferring/uploading files without properly filling in the information template was unacceptable and even blockable. Jcb (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
"transferring/uploading files without properly filling in the information template was unacceptable and even blockable", I won't argue with that. However, that's not a reason to delete PD content. A case could also be made for a bot that tags new uploads immediately, that could be voted on at VPP I suppose. Details would have to be worked out and consequences be considered. Having a bot notify (without any threat of deletion) uploaders who have images in maintenance categories is also a nifty idea. But tagging images that are quite clearly PD for deletion is not productive. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Unnecessary flooding of maintenance categories is in fact particulary disruptive and damaging, because it frustrates maintenance works and prevents blatant copyright violations from being discovered, some of them being burried for over a decade under such careless mass uploads. Jcb (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Jcb, the file you tagged was created by the crop tool -- surely you aren't requiring that anyone using that tool is required to first address any possible issues with the file? The file I'm referring to was uploaded 3 years ago. I'm talking about general rules, not about your complaints about specific users. Nobody is suggesting these files are non-free, so why are you sending them to the bin when either (a) you could fix the source (b) you could move them to a category "Files with source in description but not in the source parameter" for someone else to fix or (c) you could have a human-to-human conversation with the uploader. Instead you tag them for speedy deletion. I don't think there is community consensus for your approach that "empty source parameter -> speedy delete" is permitted when the source parameter is missing but the information is in the description. I think you are confusing user-policy (is someone being disruptive) with deletion policy (we delete non-free files, which these are not). You have been repeatedly brought to AN/U for exactly this problem. You are deleting free-files, which is disruptive. The uploader is also to blame. But two wrongs don't make a right. -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I did not tag any of these files for speedy (=immediate) deletion. I used a problem tag with notification to the uploader, after which the uploader already fixed their own error for most of the files. So the tag worked and any problem made out of it is in fact imaginary. Jcb (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Colin, "you could have a human-to-human conversation with the uploader."
Alexis Jazz, "If we wanted this, we'd insert {{no source since}} in {{Source missing}}."
Template:No_source_since: "This media file is missing essential source information. The author and source of the file must be given, so that others can verify the copyright status. Edit the file description page to add source information." The template is intended for files missing source information, not for malformed/empty/misused {{information}} tables. Plain and simple.
Suppose a file so tagged is not fixed after all, are you @Jcb: gonna fix it? Or expect another admin going through the nsd maintenance category to fix it? Or let it end up deleted? You said, "Unnecessary flooding of maintenance categories is in fact particulary disruptive and damaging." You are doing exactly the same thing by flooding Category:Media without a source as of...
Wasting everybody's time is a relatively minor issue, but sending useful files to trash is most damaging to this project.--Roy17 (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
No. While files may be undeleted (and routinely are), Commons is desperately short of resources by qualified volunteers. They can sometimes rectify all this crap, but they may not do it all the time, and it would be better to delete a hundred of clueless uploads than oblige people to fix after the uploader’s cluelessness. As a side note, while Jcb and JuTa sometimes aggressively edit-war over source= and permission=, nobody (including these two) did anything about bot-vandalism in File:Lizhongren.jpg (histlogsabuse log). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: Exactly. So it makes no sense to me for Jcb to stick "no source" on files because they have a malformed information template. To answer your question, no, Jcb probably won't fix them. He'll delete them, unless another admin beats him to it or the file gets fixed. Actually getting fixed is no guarantee for the file not to be deleted by Jcb anyway, but maybe those were incidents.
@Tuvalkin: actually I hadn't fixed anything. I have now though. And Jcb was wrong when he said "after which the uploader already fixed their own error for most of the files. So the tag worked and any problem made out of it is in fact imaginary." SecretName101 had only "fixed" a handful of files, and those were still sitting in Category:Media lacking author information so they would be tagged again in the future. That handful was fixed by hand, I noted one file had the date set to 191. 285 files were affected in total, too many to fix by hand this way: Category:Source and date for Wmcewenjr uploads (check needed). - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Here we go again.. File:Horton hospital admin 2009.JPG. Clearly the file has a license. So Jcb tags it {{No license since}}, because it's in a maintenance category, and those maintenance categories must be empty damnit! Empty! Now, I don't know why {{CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}} isn't registering as a license, but anyone who actually looks at the page and isn't a bot would have seen there's a license. So far, Fæ, Tuválkin, Colin and Roy17 agree that obviously free content shouldn't be deleted. Incnis Mrsi seems to agree with Jcb. Maybe I should make a proposal on how to deal with cases like these.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I also agree that obviously free content shouldn't be deleted. How does a template get registered as a license?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 04:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I don’t endorse Jcb’s mass-service style of job (visible e.g. here). I only argued against Roy17’s “sending useful files to trash is most damaging to this project”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The tagging for deletion of obvious public domain files on strictly bureaucratic grounds isn't very helpful for Commons - see this file from 1865. Comments on that practice are wiped away without an answer. Vysotsky (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


Shedidthistome (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Escape block by Emma Stones (talk · contribs), same uploads related to Lucy Liu and Constance Wu. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done --Majora (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


Exokey (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter logblock user

Copyvios after numerous warningsBuckaroo bob 91 (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Exokey uploaded only one file, File:Escudo Partido Justicialista Argentina.png. Everything else is from 2015-2017. I don't know if a one week block is really effective here when years pass between uploads. I mean, they may not even notice. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
So, what do you suggest? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
One week block is a proper decision in such circumstances. Taivo (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: I'm not sure, someone who only contributes here once or maybe twice a year probably won't learn and may not even notice a one week block. Especially if you don't leave any message on their talk page. I guess I would personally only block someone if they uploaded another copyvio within a month of the last warning, that way the block may also be effective. But that's just me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: In my opinion, when you get blocked, you should receive a red notification by the system (and you should not be able to disable it just like user talk messages). I just tested the system by blocking my dummy account (User:4nn1l2test) but found out that this does not happen. I would like to create a Phabricator task and propose that this new feature be added to the software. What do you think? 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: I think Yann should have left a message on Exokey's talk page anyway. A talk page message triggers a notification that will also be seen if Exokey visits another wiki and it gives them a chance to dispute the block. For example, if they believe their last upload really wasn't a copyvio. A clear on-wiki notification also helps, but it should be possible to disable it so one can continue browsing Commons without being disturbed. Logging out disables all custom preferences and typically logs you out of all Wikimedia projects, so that's not really an option. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Yes, notifying the blocked user is required by COM:BP. I think @Yann: has forgotten to do that.
Of course, user should be able to get rid of the red notification by just clicking on it. When I said user "should not be able to disable it", I meant by tweaking preferences. There are some grey boxes which cannot be enabled nor disabled. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done User notified. I do it all the times, I don't know why I forgot here. Thanks for noticing. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: That sounds fine. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Phab:T100974 already exists. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


PQ77wd (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user has again responded to a deletion request with personal attacks solely. S/he has done the same to me before in Commons:Deletion requests/File:JoengGaaiSeoi.jpg and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 75. I gave him/her a few reminders on the user talk page, but they didn't work apparently.

S/he has also attacked other users who nomitated his/her files, e.g. special:diff/203882861, special:diff/255428559.

It should be noted that this user received a final copyvio warning in 2016, User_talk:WKDx417#Copyright_violations. Some blatant copyvios (images taken from the net, screenshots, etc.) from his uploads have been deleted after that. Yet s/he still responds to deletion requests by way of personal attacks instead of learning the mistakes. I don't think this attitude is conducive to contributing here.--Roy17 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for two weeks for making personal attacks against which we should follow a zero-tolerance policy. Uploading too many deleted problematic files (after the last warning for copyright violations) was also a contributing factor. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Miros DursselevEdit

Miros Dursselev (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios after warnings. Doesn't get it (or doesn't want to get it). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Official mockingEdit

Suspected socks repeatedly uploading out-of-scope files.--Roy17 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked by Elcobbola. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


Bulfajaco12 (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked by Elcobbola. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Sweety Diya persistently uploading copyrighted imagesEdit

Sweety Diya (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) is a new user today who keeps uploading obvious copyvios in the form of obvious non-free promotional images for Indian TV programs. I've tagged all so far and left notices as well as a couple of personalised comments on his/her talk page but they've all been ignored. At en.Wikipedia an IP is then adding them to articles. I assume the IP and Sweety Diya are the same person. --AussieLegend () 03:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done files nuked, user warned. 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

On User:ShiizhangEdit

Yesterday I received 6 mails concering echos from this user, on deletion requests e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hong Kong Disneyland 1398.JPG, all containing the same comment, which could be harassment:

“@WQL: Please avoid copyright paranoia, and see these discussions Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Rabbids/2 in 2011, Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan in 2010, Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Rabbids in 2009, and wiki lawyer Mike Godwin's explanation, thanks. I believe it can be kept legally. Regards,Shiizhang (讨论) 01:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)”

Also, this user add comments on other person, suggesting that other user is doing censorship on Wikimedia Commoms, which is not the user's intention. (At the same time , this user claims on Chinese Wikipedia that other user is 为虎作伥 (helping the tiger-like evil people to do evil) on Commons, but that is not a case on Commons.) --WQL (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Shiizhang has engaged in some questionable practice with another DR, but 6 pings do not equal harassment imho.. Copy-pasting comments between similar DRs is common. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I gave User:Shiizhang a warning about civility: Special:Diff/350950347. That should suffice at this stage. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Russia unrecognized borders on the mapEdit

Hello. There is a problem of POV-pushing by author of this file File:Formula 1 all over the world-2019.svg and derivatives (see discussion page). User:Cherkash begins edit war there as in many other places, as I can see. Please, stop user's misconduct. Thanks. --Brunei (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Formula 1 all over the world-2019.svg #filehistory shows that Cherkash does not “begin edit war”. Dismiss. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

User:SZemo JP zanositaEdit

Please nuke user and upload per CPP. 13:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted, user blocked, WMF notified per child protection policy. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

El Del Flow AutenticoEdit

El Del Flow Autentico (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Out of scope images, no useful edit. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done spammer, blocked indef. -- 1989 (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


Орфорак (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios despite warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done One week block. All files deleted, or nominated for deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


Elenanextstepper (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio, no useful edit. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Alberto el93Edit

Alberto el93 (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios despite two blocks and warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

No estoy para nada de acuerdo. Todas las fotos que he subido han ido referenciadas, de la fuente de la que son extraídas, con los enlaces web y todos los datos posibles, con el fin de completar páginas con fin académico. En ningún momento he subido fotos con "copyright" para fines difamatorios o de trolleo. Lo que tampoco comparto en absoluto es la sistemática de borrar estas fotos sin, ni siquiera, pasarse por los enlaces a ver el uso que se da de ellas. Las fotos que me borras son extraídas de documentos PÚBLICOS, de PROGRAMAS ELECTORALES, de webs OFICIALES y un largo etcétera. En caso de aplicarse sanción, tomaré las medidas oportunas contra este usuario. Muchas gracias. --Alberto Espinosa 21:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alberto el93: official websites etc are also protected by copyright. By default, everything is. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alberto el 93: Se pueden infringir derechos de autor "incluso" citando la fuente. Da igual si algo es "oficial", si lo consideras un "documento público", etc. Como te han dicho... las imágenes que te encuentres en internet no pueden subirse a Commons, pues por defecto debes considerar que el autor se reserva todos los derechos, entre los que se encuentra el derecho a que alguien como tú no publique su fotografía en Commons con una licencia CC BY-SA que permite la utilización comercial y la modificación de su obra. Son excepciones a esta regla de no subir nada hecho por otras personas entre otras:

  • Imágenes de obras cuyo autor falleció hace más de 80 años (en el caso de España, en muchos otros países son 70. Normalmente debe evaluarse también el estatus de copyright en los EEUU). COM:PD (ejemplo: fotografías muy antiguas, cuadros muy antiguos,...)
  • Imágenes de obras demasiados simples, que no llegan a generar derechos de autor. COM:TOO (ejemplo: logos sencillos, un título, etc).
  • Imágenes de obras que el autor ha publicado explícitamente bajo una licencia compatible. COM:L (ejemplo: imágenes que en flickr son liberadas con CC0, CC BY o CC BY-SA, imágenes de organizaciones que explícitamente publican su contenido con licencia libre, etc).
  • Imágenes de obras que están acogidas a alguna excepción de copyright. COM:FOP (por ejemplo, puedes publicar fotografías "tuyas" de edificios modernos en España gracias a que en ese país existe una excepción legal con obras alojadas permanentemente en la vía pública. En Francia no la hay y hay muchos problemas para tener en Commons fotografías de arquitectura contemporánea, aunque tú seas el fotógrafo)

Por favor, no subas más imágenes de las que no seas tú el autor sin tener claros estos conceptos. Si tienes alguna duda puedes preguntar en Commons:Café. Un cordial saludo. Strakhov (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator JcbEdit

I'm just gonna go ahead and close this as misplaced and obviously not a problem for this board. COM:OTRS/N is that way. --Majora (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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

I have a problem with this administrator. I put many images to Wikipedia with a strict accordance to Wikipedia rules. The author confirmed his consent with publishing these photos and his consent in in the OTRS queue with this number: Ticket:2018110510009133. I have done it right!

Jcb could 1. double-check the OTRS permission before deletion 2. confirm the situation with me and ask me to clarify the status. Instead he has just deleted my work. No sorry, no attempt to help me to restore the images which he wrongly deleted. I spent several days translating captions to several languages, categorizing it etc and boom! He has just deleted it without regret.

I insist that

1. He will apologize for his wrong actions.

2. He will restore the images.

3. His administrator status should be recalled because normal admins try to clarify the situation before deletion.

Please help. Vedenei (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Vedenei: in which language can you understand “the permission was invalid”? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
What is wrong with Ticket:2018110510009133? It is in the OTRS queue, the author agreed, all was done with a strict accordance to Wikipedia rules. What is wrong? Vedenei (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you should desist from referring to either OTRS or Wikimedia Commons “as to Wikipedia”. Vedenei can be currently perceived like an alien from Venus complaining to a court in the U.S. about non-compliance to the law of Sharia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I have no idea what the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons is. Seems your interest is just to make "funny" jokes instead of explaining the situation what was wrong with the pictures. Very strange attitude. Vedenei (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Vedenei, Wikimedia-Commons or, short, Commons is a sister project to Wikipedia and has similar, but not Wikipedia-identical rules/policies.
WRT to permissions: the people working on permissions in the so-called OTRS system are all unpaid volunteers, who only can spend their spare time. This and the too low number of volunteers in this area regrettably have resulted in a queue (lag) of currently 175 days, which is unacceptable, but there is no easy solution for it and it's neither the fault of the OTRS volunteers nor of the admin volunteers such as Jcb. --Túrelio (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, let us go to the thing. These images were deleted incorrectly. How can we restore them? Vedenei (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily agree with your "incorrectly". But anyway, we have to wait until the sent-in permission is validated by a OTRS volunteer.
By the way: your translated captions aren't lost; they will be back when the file is restored. --Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
So does it mean that these images will be restored? Vedenei (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
If we receive a valid permission, they will be restored after the permission is validated. As you were noted, the permission received in November was invalid and the sender was notified why it is invalid. Everything is up to the copyright holder at the moment. Ankry (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I asked the author and he told me he received no mail (maybe blocked as spam or something like this) so we both don't have an idea what is wrong with the permission. Can anyone explain? Vedenei (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Assuming that he/you received at least 1 mail from an OTRS volunteer, I would recommend to re-contact that person and ask for the above mentioned statement about the "invalidity" of the permission (ideally with a CC copy to you), just in case the original mail had gone lost. --Túrelio (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that no mail was received from any OTRS volunteer. This is a problem. That's why no idea what's wrong. Vedenei (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Vedenei: I think that the OTRS noticeboard is the right place to ask what has happened. Ankry (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Vedenei, but from whom did you get the ticket # 2018110510009133? --Túrelio (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
User GreenMeansGo. Quote: Ticket:2018110510009133, received 05 November 2018. GMGtalk 17:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Vedenei (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, then you have an entry-point, contact him directly, he is OTRS volunteer: User:GreenMeansGo. --Túrelio (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Vedenei, the message was received but was not sufficient to license the media, and we needed additional information. If you are in contact with the subject, they should have received a follow up email with further instructions. If they did not, or they've since lost it, let me know and I can re-send it. GMGtalk 14:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Vedenei: If you continue this aggressive behaviour, you will soon find yourself blocked. Also be aware that it's mandatory to notify a user if you report them here, even if the report is blatantly mistaken like in this case. Jcb (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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