Open main menu

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard(Redirected from Commons:ANU)

Shortcut: COM:AN/U · COM:ANU

Community portal
introduction
Help deskVillage pump
copyrightproposalstechnical
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 legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
Other
[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.


Archives
13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)


Note

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

myexbackcoach.com / Lee Wilson spamEdit

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

Accounts involved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Achim55: Thanks. The newest account is User:Honeyshahq. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
And look - here's one from 2017: File:Get your ex girlfriend.png! World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done for both. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Just for fun, here's an even older one from a different "relationship expert": File:How-to-get-your-ex-back-tips.gif. This one is too simple to be copyrighted, but the link to the spammy domain was left (even though it wasn't the actual source). I fixed it. Looks like Lee Wilson just borrowed his shtick form someone else. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
And one more, from 2017: File:Get.png. Looks like spammers infested Commons long ago. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Tris T7Edit

(Don't click his CPU-heavy user page.)

Tris T7 (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Hello, User:Tris T7 is creating controversial category's, after he has been asked not to do so on his talkpage and a RFC (Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:JPEG files needing categories as of 2018) which i closed. I don't think this is helpful, but only serves the pourpuse to boost the edit count and to flood other users watchlist. We have {{Unc}} for that purpuse (which is added by upload toold or by bot). --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Steinsplitter This is User Tris T7 as you can see i have only 1 and haft years edited experienced. Yes i agreed if system still allow new user to edit. But in my opinion the user who open discussion should not be user who close discussion until get conclusion for what i did. I have seen files mixing up together between .SVG , . PDF, Animated .GIF, Audio, Video, Illustration files, Logo files which in file name showing logo text, black and white files, Etc. to Category it should separate and classified. So i started and when i have been asked to stop i do not have chance to undo what i did by myself as i asked. I think sysops should be more respect to new user for discussion and i think sysops who have rights for translator should use correct word in conversation. Also mistake about revert which user Steinsplitter agreed as per conversation :For the few logo files which i reveted accidentally, yes

and here are full conversation for it.

+19‎ m File:Bokeh (138570399).jpeg ‎ Copying from Category:All media needing categories as of 2018 to Category:Images from 500px photo needing categories as of 2018; Remove {{Uncategorized}} current [rollback: 1 edit] [br] Tags: Cat-a-lot, PHP7

Please immediataly stop this kind of edits. Uncategoryzed files are tagged with the relevant template ({{Uncategorized}}), not a category. Please follow due process, there is no consensus to tag uncategoryzed files as you did. Best. --Steinsplitter (A) (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Same for Category:Black and white files needing categories as of 2019, Category:Images from 500px photo needing categories as of 2018, etc. Do not create such categry's. Apart from the fact that it is unwanted, you are flooding the recent changes. Those are bot tasks. CC: @Themightyquill (A), Roy17: --Steinsplitter (A) (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Question for category Hello Steinsplitter (A) CC: @Themightyquill (A), Roy17: How are you? I hope you are well. As per rights of Admins or Sysops you have. This is Tris T7. As per your reverted for my edited about many of file from Media needing categories. Example i have added category to specific files such as

File:Banglanews logo20180725112204.jpg to Category:Logos from Media without category and the file name shown it is logo as you can see and it is press company as file name shown Banglanews so my question is Why you reverted my edited? Please kindly provide me some knowledge what i did wrong so i can understand and next time please allow me to revert them by myself that way i can learn and not to do it again with other files. And maybe before you revert someone editing if you can kindly communicate with them before revert and find out reason perhaps none of this would get easier to handle and you do not need double work to do.

Thank you for support. Regards, ..Tris T7 (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Here are some more file you reverted that i added to Logos category:

File:Barbour Brand Logo.svg as file name shown Logo so you have remove it out from Logos category that i did. Thank you and await for your reply...Tris T7 (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

File:BankAxept logo.png some more sample for question i have asked...Tris T7 (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Bankhaus Lampe logo.svg

File:Bank BSU Logo.svg

File:Barat logo Bildzeichen materials.jpg

File:Bankverein Werther logo.svg

File:Barclaycard Logo.svg

File:Baojun logo.png

File:Bares für Rares Logo.png

File:Barone-Mgmt logo web-rgb.png

File:BartendingSchool-LogoV2-Final.gif

File:BARKING GECKO LOGO.jpg

File:Bata National High School logo.png

File:Bank Millenium.svg

File:Bankverein Werther AG.svg Especially this file when you have look i have asked 10 people that this file are logos or not and answered 100% said it is logo but you have removed it out from Category:Logos that i have edited.

So all file above just a few sample that you removed them out from Category:Logos from files needing categories or none category files. So please kindly explain for me to understand and the rest i will handle revert by myself so you do not to worry about it again. Thank you again for support and i just contributed 1 year and a few months old. So if something i did wrong please kindly provide knowledge or details so i will not do mistake again. Regards..Tris T7 (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

About Category:Black and white files needing categories as of 2019, Category:Images from 500px photo needing categories as of 2018, etc. In future Can you kindly let contributors or user who created handle the work and kindly provide knowledge to them what they did wrong so they can be next generation of support when the current generation not interesting for contributions any longer or something happen with them so there are still have chance to continue the legacy. And what i did i think it useful as per separated black and white files out of mixing load of file from over 2xx,xxx files that needing categories. But if you want to revert them at lease you should have consensus before or at lease let me undo after conclusion of consensus. But now you have reverted and deleted it without discuss with me. I am just expecting that user with long time experienced could be more kind to give me knowledge i do not have and i can learn from it and not make the same mistake again plus correct direction for future contributions and support project. So please in future if you could provide me how to do the right thing as policy. please kindly support. Same with other new comers and any users. anyway i am learning many thing from this contributions and could use them in Phabricator to prevent and improve for better system..Thank you in advances, Regards,..Tris T7 (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read the policy's and the guidelines. You have to read them yourself, i cannot "provide knowledg" to you. There is no consenus for your changes, there is a closed CFD (where is no consensus). I see multiple complains regarding your edit pattern on yor talkpage, also multiple deleted files, uploaded in violation of COM:L. And regarding the stuff you wrote on my talkpage, this looks like a revange - i had to revert thousands of edits so i acceidentally reverted a few too much, accidentally. Do not play the system and make sure you follow due process. --Steinsplitter (A) (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I still did not understand why you did not answer my question above so i am asking again for

File:Banglanews logo20180725112204.jpg

File:Barbour Brand Logo.svg

File:BankAxept logo.png

File:Bankhaus Lampe logo.svg

File:Bank BSU Logo.svg

File:Barat logo Bildzeichen materials.jpg

File:Bankverein Werther logo.svg

File:Barclaycard Logo.svg

File:Baojun logo.png

File:Bares für Rares Logo.png

File:Barone-Mgmt logo web-rgb.png

File:BartendingSchool-LogoV2-Final.gif

File:BARKING GECKO LOGO.jpg

File:Bata National High School logo.png

File:Bank Millenium.svg

File:Bankverein Werther AG.svg

As per 16 sample files above Which files allow to add in Category:Logos? None of it? or all of it? If all of it Am i allow to add them back to Category:Logos? I did not understand when you said "Accidentally reverted" Did you mean what i edited are useful? Can you give exactly amount of files that you accidentally did revert? And do not get me wrong about what i have asked none of discussion are revenge. I mentioned those stuff because i want to clarify and get thing right and useful for others that all. Here also not revenge but i am kindly request you to recheck them and make sure that those files are belong to category or not before you revert someone editing. So i will wait for your answer for question above to let me know amount of files you accidentally reverted. Thank you for your reply and Regards..Tris T7 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

For the few logo files which i reveted accidentally, yes. --Steinsplitter (A) (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

So i am not sure at this point what we have to do first thing is to allow sysops to recheck accidentally reverted. Or create tools for prevent new user or editors? And again what i added in this discussion are not revenge as per user:Steinsplitter mentioned but to find resolution to prevent not to let it happen again for the same issue of accidentally reverted of over 100 files..Tris T7 (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)..Tris T7 (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I am adding more question here about revert edit. As per those over hundreds of Logo files did not related to Category:Jpeg and 500px or black and white files which meant User:Steinsplitter reverted all my edit before recheck what i have done. So now i have to add those Logo files to Category:Logos again which i do not mind to do so but do not want to consider as vandalism until i make sure that i am allow to do it. So please User:Steinsplitter if you can kindly confirm with me i can continue those contribution for project. .. Thank you..Tris T7 (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The user is asking "more questions" but fails to see that his mass-edits (as described in the initial complain) are not helpful. Please advise the user to stop this kind of edits, becuase there is no consensus to do so. While it is true that i accidentally reverted a few useful edits when closing the CFD (nothing compared to thousands of edits which the user made), it does not change the fact about Tris T7's controversal category changes and the closed CFD. --Steinsplitter (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Well I thought he stopped, but actually went on to create more useless categories.
@Tris T7: please read COM:CAT carefully. If you have questions, you can ask at COM:VP.
Others, I believer the following cats should be nuked:
  1. Category:Spider's A Families
  2. Category:Spider's B Families
  3. Category:Banknotes of the World organised for education--Roy17 (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I have deleted those nonsense categories. We are getting perilously close to a CIR block here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear all who involved in this discussion

Are we still talking about Category:JPEG files needing categories as of 2018? We should have conclusion 1 subject per discussion and if it done then please kindly add another subject to discuss so other who read it will not get confuse. So i knew now Category:JPEG files needing categories as of 2018 not allow and i stopped and it will never happen again for Category:JPEG xxxxxxxxxxxxxx etc. and User:Steinsplitter a few accident reverted to me it should be 1 or 2 files not over 100 files so if you see my attention to get all jpeg files separated out from mixing in those over hundred thousand files. You also should mention about Illustration files that i separated as well. So i am learning from it what allow and what not to. And if you want me to responsible for it you should let me undo it and delete those category that you think it not useful that will make editors understand more than what happened. But i am also did not complain for it because i respect your rights of sysop that you have experienced for years of it. But for me i just only have time to learn for over 1 and a half year. So Please in future if i do some mistake please discuss with me and allow me to fix all of those mistake by guide me if you can. Thank you in advanced. ..Tris T7 (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Manager27Edit

Everything is copyvio, no useful edit. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Not everything was copyvio, so I blocked Manager for a week. Taivo (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The others files were pictures of him... --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Not only. There are couple of free logos too. Taivo (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Reneh3790Edit

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

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

I call your bluff and raise 200.

File:Collage Ciudad de Quetzaltenango.jpg

File:Villa Nueva Guatemala - Collage.jpg

File:Collage Guatemala City.jpg

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

Pinging @JoKalliauer, Patrick Rogel. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with @Alexis Jazz:, and I do not trust Reneh3790's rigorous own-claims, but I'm feeling to inexperienced (in user-problems) to suggest anything.
There might be one/two >>Own collages with OWN PHOTOS<< that's true, and therefore claims that (s)he is right at this one collage. But I do not looked that much into it as Alexis. But it is quite clear that several/most uploads are not Self-photographed .
Anyhow, maybe if all doubt pictures (s)he uploaded get deleted, we might believe his/her warning and (s)he might won't upload anything again (even without blocking).
Also blocking seems reasonable to me, but if we expect no (illegal) Media will get uploaded anymore, I do not see any need/sense of blocking him/her. But if something happens again it is then even more obvious.
I think the Deletionrequest (DR) is important and I personally would wait till it is decided, even-though the DR seems obvious to me.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 15:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

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

@Elcobbola: more copyvios would obviously be a reason to block. The issue here is: say that Reneh3790 uploads some more photos, maybe with metadata this time. Even if we find no hard proof they are copyvio, we'd pretty much have to delete them anyway (unless we get OTRS permission I guess) because the user is known to outright lie about authorship. Well, as long as they stay retired I suppose it won't matter. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Generally, at any given time, a substantial portion of the images in Category:Copyright violations are ones for which the uploader has claimed "own"--an identical outright lie. We don't block these users until they demonstrate a failure to respond to appropriate warning. This is because "blocks are a last resort." (COM:BLOCK) Reneh3790 has effectively received only one indication (!!!) of a problem--a copyvio nomination on 25 November 2018 (Reneh3790 had not edited since 13 June 2019, and all other notifications came on on 17 June 2019)--and has not uploaded a copyvio since the final warning. Until we have evidence that the final warning (the "second to last resort") is being disregarded, we do not need the last resort of a block. Эlcobbola talk 16:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
So I would close it here for now and wait for the next uploads
  1. If it is a correct upload: Great
  2. If it is a copyright-violation: According to @Elcobbola, Alexis Jazz: this will most likely lead to a block
  3. if it is unclear: It is in my opinin Reneh3790's "work" to gain trust again, and therfore without Commons:OTRS this will/should lead at least to a DR.
On User_talk:Reneh3790 we have a link to this page, and therfore if something happens again this disussion will be "exhumed"/found again.
I think we should write this conclusion onto their talkpage, that they know it's there buisness to gain trust again, and only obvious (with complete sources/permissions) Media will be accepted.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 16:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@JoKalliauer: sounds reasonable. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: a substantial portion of the images in Category:Copyright violations are ones for which the uploader has claimed "own"--an identical outright lie.
No. Just no. Dropping some files on UploadWizard and mindlessly clicking "next" is bad, but not nearly as bad as going to the talk page of someone who tagged your files for deletion and typing out the words "why don't you let me upload my OWN Photos I am taking.", knowing full well this is false. Is this really the same to you? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Reneh3790's comments were about the collages. It is entirely possible they think cropping the source images makes the crops theirs ("OWN PHOTOS") and that combining those crops into collages makes the compilation theirs ("Own collages"). This would me an honest mistake from ignorance of derivaitve works, which is very common. Your comparison is disingenuous, and your comments are ridiculous (a false claim of "own" is equally disruptive whether done deliberately or mindlessly--a copyvio is a copyvio, and knows not intent.) Эlcobbola talk 17:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: I'm all for playing devil's advocate, but even I wouldn't try to defend this one. (at least not with your strategy) You even try to turn this on me, calling my comparison "disingenuous" and my comments "ridiculous". Are you for real? You say "Reneh3790's comments were about the collages". Well that would have been an excellent defense, were it not for the fact Reneh3790 said "why don't you let me upload my OWN Photos I am taking". Exactly how does one take a collage? And btw, Patrick Rogel had only tagged the three collages which I analyzed here. So that's what he's claiming to be the author of. And you make no difference in intent? Even when the act is identical, intent determines consequences. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 20:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Platin555Edit

Platin555 (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Abusing multiple accounts (a.k.a. Marcos886avila (talk · contribs), Ruggeri86 (talk · contribs), 86ruggeri (talk · contribs)): same websites copied, same destination (es:Anexo:Equipamiento del Ejército Argentino). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef., all files deleted. --Yann (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Th3dwd3Edit

Bonjour,

La plupart des fichiers importés par ce nouvel utilisateur sont des copyvios flagrants :

Par ailleurs, il est probable que ce soit un faux-nez du compte Avignonplayers (talk · contribs), en témoignent les contributions croisées sur Wikipédia en français (voir [1] et [2]) ; la liste des anciens faux-nez est d'ailleurs disponible ICI.

Ainsi, j'estime qu'il y a abus. 2A01:CB0C:841B:E00:B828:BB62:FE5A:37A3 02:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Vous devez informer l'utilisateur si vous ouvrez un sujet à son propos ici. Je l'ai fait pour vous cette fois.
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment User warned, files deleted. A request for checkuser may be useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

213.92.251.220Edit

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

URL spam.--Roy17 (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done, 1 day-block for spamming. --Túrelio (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

172.113.228.134Edit

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

IP user disrupting Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stage Actor and Play Director Darryl Maximilian Robinson.jpg. He spams entirely unrelated article content and source links into a deletion discussion, that should focus on a lack of permission from the original photographer. By now this is clearly disrupting any chance of a civil discussion. His occasional personal attacks and namecalling aren't helpful either. As my nomination of his photo is apparently seen as personal insult, could an uninvolved admin please advise the user about the purpose of such a discussion and warn him about civility? I would warn him myself of course, but seeing his current reactions any message from me would likely be considered as inflammatory. If the user doesn't want to provide verifiable evidence for a free license, the file should be deleted as "no permission" imo. GermanJoe (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked IP for 3 days Gbawden (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Patrick RogelEdit

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

To whom it may concern,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time,

-Aaron Williams
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace woe (talk • contribs)
Dear Aaron, per our policy all files previously published somewhere in internet under non-free license should have OTRS-permission. Copyright belongs to Heidelinde Lang and formally only she has right to publish the photo under free license. So you should open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail should be sent to our permissions department at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Permission must come from copyright holder, that menas from Heidelinde Lang. Commons takes all copyright questions very seriously. For example, you said "own work" on file page, although you are not the photographer. Taivo (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Patrick tagged the image for speedy deletion because it is an exact copy of an image already published on the internet. He did nothing wrong here. Emailed permission from the copyright holder of the photograph (not the subject) is necessary.
The Wikipedia article was deleted because your client does not meet Wikipedia standards of notability, not because of any corruption. Please read the Wikipedia policy on conflict-of-interest editing (particularly this starter guide) - since you have a connection to the subject, you are limited as to what edits you can make. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the request concerned File:4w1a8578aaaaa.jpg (which is a picture of Darnell Price AKA OG Cuicide) and has nothing to do with this Leonhard R. Lang thing. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Biology2016Edit

Biology2016 (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

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

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

ภาษาอังกฤษEdit

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

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

JukomartEdit

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

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

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment :-( I explained him, that if he once more re-uploads the photo, then he will be blocked again. I explained him need of OTRS-permission. Good is that the photo has now EXIF and he does not claim own work anymore. Taivo (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for the 3rd time, now for 2 weeks. — Racconish💬 06:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Guido den BroederEdit


Pili02Edit

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

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

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

Hello admins please take care of User:Anpanman1Edit

Anpanman1 (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

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

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

PercivalfigaroEdit

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

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

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

Hello admins please take care of User:Shivabiswas22Edit

Shivabiswas22 (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

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

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

KnvrajeshEdit

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

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

✓ Done One week block, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
And indef'ed on en.wp for undisclosed paid editing. The topics leading to that block there are in the area of telecom, not the celebrity-pictures being uploaded here, but I cannot rule out that the editor is some third-party SEO for hire, so I don't know if the week should be extended to indef here also. But obviously will require a close eye upon their return. DMacks (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

ویرایشگر878Edit

ویرایشگر878 (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

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

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

Rahul sharma from DelhiEdit

Rahul sharma from Delhi (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

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

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

Peter don from milanEdit

Peter don from milan (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

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

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

Axel Fabricio AcostaEdit

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

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

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

DRIS92 vs. HanoozEdit

DRIS92 (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

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

@DRIS92: Do not remove anything from a deletion request. You can mention which files are OK, according to you, eventually with <s></s>. And do not add comment in the talk page, just add them at the bottom of the DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: This is one of the files that DRIS92 removes from the deletion request. I provided another resource of this file here before their edit wars. Hanooz 11:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yann:This is one exemple of false informations Hanooz. He claimed that the photo published elsewhere (in non-free websites) but the source exist in page is {{https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/media/1394/07/21/887398/%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%AD-%D8%AE%D8%B7-%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A8%D9%88%D9%87-%D8%A7%DA%98%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D9%BE%DB%8C%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%AA%D9%87-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%AC%D8%B1/photo/1%7Cthis}} at bottom of site is written "All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License."

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

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

WLP socks and disruptive uploadsEdit

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

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

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

ОрфоракEdit

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

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

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

Obakeng-electrobuxEdit

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

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

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

Meninas sereiasEdit

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

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

TerminatureEdit

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

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