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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:02, 22 August 2020

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	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
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

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.

A1Cafel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since my last proposal I've seen a lot more of A1Cafel's nominations. It looks like he goes on streaks: he identifies an issue, then nominates all of the files that have that issue. When his understanding of the policy is correct, it's very useful (IIRC he's flushed out a lot of files for no FoP in certain countries, for example). When he misunderstands the policy, he winds up generating a lot of work for other people to clean up (like when he nominated a bunch of files because a non-OTRS agent applied the OTRS tag). If we could find a way to keep his nominations within policy, I'd be fine letting him keep nominating things. The problem is how do we get there? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think at the very least, a ban on speedy deletion is in order because it gives others little chance to notice the nomination before it gets deleted. Yes, the deleting admin(s) are also partly at fault, but unfortunately there are just too many files to get through in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and admin patrollers would not be able to get through the backlog if they had to research each case with the same care which is given to COM:UNDEL requests, so a lot of the burden and trust is placed on speedy deletion taggers to get it right. The nxd templates are the same, just with a one-week delay, which doesn't help unless someone wants to volunteer to check each of their taggings. If we don't want to go with a full deletion ban, maybe forcing them to use DR is an option. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My experience with A1Cafel has been limited, but what there's been of it has led me to the conclusion that their competence in the area of deletions is distinctly lacking. I would agree with King of Hearts that a topic ban from nominating images for deletion in any form is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A revengeful vote? IMO Ken doesn't want his images to be deleted, and then he agrees with this topic-ban proposal. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

For failing to provide a satisfactory justification of their actions or an explanation of how they will improve in the future, I have imposed restrictions on them, detailed at User talk:A1Cafel#Editing restrictions. Basically, they cannot nominate images for deletion outside of COM:DR, and at DR they are limited to 5 images per day. I intend to review their nominations periodically and loosen up the restrictions if they show a pattern of consistently good nominations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support This user needs to be rate-limited in nominating their DR. I suggest that all DRs made by A1Cafel should at least be responded by the uploader or other user. If Cafel's deletion is unopposed, it should not be taken as valid and RfCs must be made for validation. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 03:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Obsuser

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

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

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

Repeated uploads of promotional images by User:Pkj19851

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:TintuArunav

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

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

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

Magog the Ogre: Why PD-ROC-Traffic Markings in Template:PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jusjih請寫中文吧，恕我沒能看懂你反應的問題。

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RogerRabbit888 - dubious claims of own work

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

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

D. Pedro I do Brasil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

Disruptive edits

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

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

Shpernik088

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

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

User:Iwfksk 1104

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

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

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

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

User:ニャンコ6767

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

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

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

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

User:WastingDust281

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

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

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

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

Delete my uploads

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

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

User:TylerKutschbach removing categories

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

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

Unimpressed. --Smial (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've left final warning on their talkpage; should they continue, please report. --A.Savin 13:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A.Savin Ignoring the fact that these edits have be manually reversed one by one, TylerKutschbach has presumably moved to just uploading on top of the old images so those are just removed that way (without updating the licensing box). It's not clear whether their versions are helpful or not. For example, see File:Florida Presidential Election Results 1904.svg. Comparing the prior version to this version, a lot of the counties look to have been removed. This may be more accurate as (for example) Broward County was created in 1915 after the 1904 election but since no one provides sources, it's not clear whether or not this is more accurate or how the data should be displayed. I'd presume using counties from then is better since I don't know how would anyone get the data based on current counties anyway. Again, the main issue is a complete refusal to communicate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:A.Savin

Hello,

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

(Moved from the Help Desk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Krok6kola: Please keep the interpersonal conflicts off of the help desk. I believe this is not the first time I've said that to you, but consider this time an administrative warning. If you have problems with a user's conduct and feel a need to bring it somewhere other than user talk pages, this might be the least appropriate place to bring it. Usually things like that belong at COM:AN/U; if they really raise issues of broad interest, then [[COM:VP]. [[COM:VP] would certainly be where to bring this if it is mainly a content dispute, but then you should be trying to focus on content, not conduct. People looking for tangible help in using Commons should not have to wade through issues about interpersonal conflicts. - Jmabel ! talk 15:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Administrative warning? I don't see what you're saying being a valid reason to block someone. 1989_talk 18:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

obviously, written on help page, not relevant here on AN/U-Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)I would appreciate if all parties would stop commenting on this section; if this is a dispute worth having, please feel free to copy-paste some or all of the above to COM:AN/U and continue there. You are welcome to post a link here to where this discussion continues, or (if you cut-and-paste it all) to replace this section with such a link. - Jmabel ! talk 15:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1989: Seriously? You don't think repeatedly disrupting the Help Desk with arguments about people's conduct could possibly require administrative sanction, but you blocked an admin for a week for what amounts to a bad edit summary? (I agree it was a bad edit summary, by the way.) - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could you explain these rollbacks against Krok6kola? My question is to verify you're not misusing rollback. 1989_talk 18:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your talents in resolving disputes. But seriously, as there are quite many reverts, it's not possible to elaborate each, so I do the latest one: it violates COM:OVERCAT. Many other cases are similar. If you're interested, take a closer look at them; fortunately, Commons is a transparent project. --A.Savin 19:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't give me an explanation, I have no other choice but to block you. 1989_talk 19:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what reason amongst those stated in COM:BP, please? And additionally, you are clearly biased. --A.Savin 19:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Misusng rollback for purposes other than vandalism. As you're an admin, I cannot revoke rollback from you, so this is the alternative route I'm willing to take with you if you fail to take any accountability for your actions. 1989_talk 19:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1989, your behavior here, unsurprisingly, is unbecoming of an admin. Blocking an admin who does not answer what you want to here, is most like a desysop for you, especially given your previous misbehavior as an admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last tine I checked, you were not a dictator on this project, and ""alternative routes" not compatible with the conflict resolution policies is not someting we are going to tolerate here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is entirely your opinion. There's no special privilege here. This user in question will be treated just like everyone else, admin or no admin. 1989_talk 19:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my opinion, this is a policy. Commons:Blocking policy does not list a block reason what you claim to be a blokable offence. My opinion is indeed you should have desysopped in May when you escaped the desysop pretending that you "retired".--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are things I have been blocked for that isn't mentioned there, so I consider your point invalid. To correct you, I think you meant March. I don't recall abusing anything during that time, I was the victim of it. That's most certainly not a reason for a desysop. 1989_talk 19:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @1989. First, I'm not misusing it, as I already stated, that most of the edits are violating COM:OVERCAT -- an official policy, and so, permanent violation of this policy despite of warnings and attempts to discuss, is vandalism. Second, again, you are clearly biased, so please leave me alone with your aggressive behaviour and let a neutral admin decide, if ever there is something to decide. If any of my edits is wrong, that should be reverted and yes, in this case I probably should be blocked for vandalism; but please show me which are wrong and where, in your point of view, I did vandalism and why. If you can't, then leave me alone. This is a really serious issues with your aggressive threatments... --A.Savin
First of all: I don't even know you, so please stop this bias accusation. Second of all: I never said anything about you performing vandalism. What I said for you to do is explain your reverts, and your reasoning is unrelated to vandalism, what the rollback tool is meant for. That is not an acceptable answer. 1989_talk 19:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all: LOL. Second of all: I'm sincerely sorry that my arguments do not satisfy you. In general, if I edit categories and anything else, I do it to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing else applies to reverts of Kalbbes' edits. Perhaps COM:Categoris is useful stuff for you to read about how to handle categories; otherwise, I cannot help. --A.Savin 20:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am mentioned from the very beginning in this discussion. To better understand the situation you could read my discussions with Krok6kola on my talk page: in sections Pakistan and Categories. Here are some comments on Krok6kola's statements.

Krok6kola starts above: “Elkost came to a category of a country (Pakistan)... and changed major categories”. This is an unproven statement, it is not even mentioned which categories are in question. The only named specific categories, discussed by us, are “Activities in Pakistan” and its subcategories – I have not touched neither of them. No other named category of Pakistan was discussed (I am afraid that he/she considers me inventor of “Category:Activities in Pakistan” while even outsiders can easily find who is its author.)
A bit further Krok6kola states: “I then ask Elkost about the philosophy of the category changes they were making. They answered that they did not know.” If this “they” means “Elkost”, then these 2 statements are not true. The sentence (without any question) on my talk page, including “philosophy”, is: “I would like to know more about the philosophy behind this specific system used on the Commons.” During our both discussions I was not asked for any my specific “change” (edit). My reply “I can't answer your questions. Ask the authors of these edits.” was the answer to his/her last questions, not to the above presented (but unasked) question “about the philosophy of the category changes”.
At the end Krok6kola says above: “...Elkost of whom I had asked some honest questions about the new category system he created in Pakistan in the last week”. In fact, there is not a new category system in Pakistan created by me (only new categories like similar categories for Pakistan and other countries), there is not such question in our discussions. One cannot answer unasked questions, me too. --Elkost (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A.Savin blocked

I’ve noticed that 1989 has blocked A.Savin for a week. I don’t think the block is appropriate, 1989 is an involved Administrator (based on the June 2020 AN/U) and this is a controversial block, which requires discussion before being implemented. While I think it was inappropriate for A.Savin to use rollback for OVERCAT issues, and should have used something other than the rollback tool (so a further summary can be added), the COM:ROLLBACK page doesn’t stipulate that it is a vandalism only tool. Bidgee (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a poor block--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking admin is involved, the reason for the block isn't supported by the blocking policy, block is punitive in nature. A. Savin should be unblocked asap. Natuur12 (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like both editors so will remain neutral here - My general opinion is that rollback was misused here and if I'm being absolutely honest as I can be .... A.S's reasoning for using is wholly insufficient, If you're an admin you're expected to revert changes and explain why (unless it's blatant vandalism),

The block should've been for 24 hours-48 hours tho - IMHO a week doesn't really fit the crime here,

Administrators shouldn't be exempt from their duties on the basis of them commenting on an ANU thread months ago. –Davey2010^Talk 20:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)A.Savin and 1989 have recent history, not just over a month ago.

Though even if there were no history between the two, the block is wrong. Rollback isn’t exclusively a vandalism tool, as stated on COM:ROLLBACK “ The use of rollback should normally be limited to combating vandalism, but the tool can also be used to rollback your own mistaken edits or the clearly mistaken edits of another user.” Bidgee (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bidgee, Okay fair enough, I was obviously aware of all this, I'm just judging it on how I'm seeing it but ofcourse there may be more than meets the eye, Obviously I'm aware of rollbacking your own edits .... but "or the clearly mistaken edits of another user." ... really ? ... No that should not be what Rollback is used for and IMHO ought to be removed.

ROLLBACK basically says it can be used on good faith mistaken edits.... so technically A.Savin hasn't abused rollback .... Meh –Davey2010^Talk 11:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked A.Savin. Given the history of these two users, I do not consider it appropriate for either of them to unilaterally block the other. On the merits of the block, a perceived failure to adequately explain one's rollback actions is not valid grounds to block. If it's something like "I will continue to use rollback in a controversial manner", then there is a case for blocking, but I just don't see that here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks King. "Blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one". 1989 have a bad opinion on A. Savin long time ago User:A.Savin/Archive/2015/1#Explanation (2015). 1989 in definitely involved admin. -- Geagea (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Though the block is now lifted, I hope that’s not it for 1989. Sealle (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Despite our few interactions, I have nothing against A.Savin. Like I said, I don't even know them, which for some reason they took as a joke. Nothing about this is funny. That false narrative is very toxicating. 1989_talk 21:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions say otherwise, the block gives an impression that you do have an axe to grind. Bidgee (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is entirely your opinion, stop spreading lies. 1989_talk 21:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and how is it lies that I am spreading? It might be time for you to reconsider your future as a Admin. Bidgee (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Acting beyond rules tells more than words. And please refrain from such uncivil comments here. Sealle (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me, being uncivil? Another opinion. 1989_talk 21:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geagea Thanks for the link from 2015's archive! Unfortunately (or fortunately), I have not so long memory, and had forgotten it. But indeed, that might be a reason why they hate me. Despite the fact that the deleted picture was not even taken by them. Do they actually take any pictures whatsoever? --A.Savin 21:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The block was unjustified and 1989's action is not the way admin should handled issues raised in AN/U. There was no preventative measure in this blocking and it's not support by commons blocking policy. -- Geagea (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How should an admin who misused rollback be handled then? 1989_talk 22:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, proof that there was misuse, no? --A.Savin 22:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To voice your opinion in the discussion and wait to consensus. Read also the words of user Bidgee. that's not nonsens. If you are not be attentive to other users "opinions" they might become to votes. -- Geagea (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Never said I wasn't, but ok. 1989_talk 22:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I realise that by some people's standards my own adminship fell short of their unrealistic expectations, because they failed to fully understand the long-standing issues from which I still suffer, but this is just frightening. Are standards really dropping that much, and so quickly? "When you're in a hole..." Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat what I wrote at User talk:A.Savin: I am totally opposed to any administrator unilaterally blocking another, except possibly in an emergency for an hour or so if someone really seems to be going crazy, just to give time for discussion. Admins are necessarily considered trusted members of the community, and blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Any block of an admin (or really any clearly strong contributor) should be discussed beforehand at COM:AN/U. (No opinion either way on A.Savin's conduct here, just on 1989's.) - Jmabel ! talk 23:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems difficult to view this interaction as not being a bit authoritarian in approach. GMG ^talk 23:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any strong sanctions against A.Savin. A warning to explain their actions better will be sufficient. Support lifting their block if it has not been lifted yet. It appears that despite them not being forthcoming in the discussion, their rollbacks were in line with accepted policy. A.Savin is probably the worst admin on Commons, but they are a good contributor and their admin actions are just a yota better than the level needed to remove sysop privileges. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was a punitive block and therefore not legal. --Smial (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing bad behaviour from established sysops has to erode the wider community's trust in all those with sysop tools. Refraining from acting when you are involved, or are perceived as involved by many other parties, is an obvious 'bad thing'. Similarly when you wield the mop, there is absolutely no excuse to use threatening or abusive language. How is this fixed, apart from de-sysop requests? It is unfortunate we do not have the concept of giving an administrator enforced 'gardening leave', where their access to tools is removed for a time-out without the hassle of putting them 'under a cloud'. Maybe we should, especially during this stressful time of the pandemic. --Fæ (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gjeon338

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

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

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

User:A furry fox

A furry fox (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

User:A furry fox has been uploading memes into Wikimedia Commons, sometimes consisting of non-free content Anomper012 (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Removed. 1989_talk 20:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:1989

Closing this on purely procedural grounds. A discussion has been opened regarding 1989 at Commons:Administrators/Requests/1989 (desysop). A discussion is ongoing regarding A.Savin above. A discussion is ongoing regarding Krok6kola below. It seems further contributions to this thread will only help to confuse whatever consensus emerges from the other community discussions taking place. Those who wish to contribute are welcome to do so in these other threads.

Anyone is welcome to undue this close if they feel it is not appropriate. GMG ^talk 12:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 hereby want to complain about a presumably partisan 7-days block imposed by admin 1989 against me few hours ago, and meanwhile lifted by a third admin as inappropriate.

The original discussion that led to the situation was in the complaint against me raised by Krok6kola (formerly Kalbbes), that I revert much of their edits on categories, so that the user is taking offence and feeling deliberately harassed by me. In case you're interested to know if this accusation is justified, you may read my first statement in the thread (the one moved from Help Desk), and the subsequent discussion. If this is not sufficient, I've provided more detail in the collapse box below.

More details

The fact is, that I indeed reverted a large number of Krok6kola/Kalbbes' edits. In most cases this was over-categorization (which is not welcome according to COM:OVERCAT policy); examples: [18] ("Transport infrastructure in Pakistan" is already one of sub(sub)cats of "Pakistan"), [19] (ditto on "Culture of Pakistan"), [20] ("Aurora in the United States" = subcat of "Aurora by country" = subcat of "Aurora Borealis"); also repeated edits like these on categories where they already have been reverted, without seeking any discussion with me: [21], [22]. Besides over-categorization, there were further inappropriate edits, examples: [23] (Category "Pakistan" instead of more specific ones), [24] (Entire blanking of category, instead of opening an RfD / CfD as usually required).

There were numerous (in the end useless) attempts to discuss between me and Krok6kola, for example: Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2020/06#Please give me some advice, Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2020/06#Deleting my categories, Commons:Help desk/Archive/2020/07#Please advise me, User:A.Savin/Archive/2020#Galle Fort, User:A.Savin/Archive/2020#Would you mind if I moved Clifton Beach to Clifton, Karachi (in accordance with the enwiki article)?, User:A.Savin/Archive/2020#Rusian Embassy in Clifton, Karachi, User:A.Savin/Archive/2020#Your reversion of "Roof of Frere Hall" as a "duplicate", User:A.Savin/Archive/2020#Your revert is not supported by en:wiki article, User:A.Savin/Archive/2020#Do you have nothing to do but revert what I do within minutes? (in all that discussions, I answered nearly all questions by Kalbbes, so their claim I would "refuse discussion" is obviously wrong, if not to say slander), additionally several (probably archived or removed) threads on their talk page, and yes, the ANU thread in June, where 1989 took clear position against me.

Just in short, again, I'm not targeting Krok6kola in any way, but I'm reverting edits of them that are inappropriate, and sadly these are not just a few edits (to say the least) and not only in the last couple of weeks. Especially I take a look at edits on a) categories (because correct categorization of categories is more important than of files, especially in order to keep tools like "HotCat" or "Cat-a-lot" usable), and b) my own pictures I uploaded (because I'm watchlisting this content, which no one but me would do -- actually logical IMO). I would be happy not to have anything to do with Krok6kola anymore, and in fact it's easy -- it's just they should do it careful and in accordance with policies and Common sense, simple as is.

I'm sorry I can present only a sample of reverts (just recent ones) and discussion attempts. If I had to present all, I would need days or even weeks to write it down; and no one would read it anyway (TLDR).

1989 claimed "Misuse of rollback" as the reason. In their opinion, the block is the only way in this case, because I cannot have my rollbacker flag revoked (except when being desysopped). I already tried to explain 1989 in the discussion that the misuse accusations are unjust, but they have ignored all arguments, threatened me, and in the end blocked me.

To understand why the "Rollback abuse" accusations are not true, you may see my previous discussion attempts, linked in the above collapse box. In fact, there were attempts to explain COM:OVERCAT to Krok6kola. So the question is: how long should one try to explain this guideline to someone who is apparently not at all interested in being helped. In other words, should I really write in each revert's summary "Please mind COM:OVERCAT", despite the fact that Krok6kola has of course been aware of COM:OVERCAT all the time? And if the problem is that Krok6kola is upset because of the revert notifications they receive, this has nothing to do with the Rollback tool: manual reverts generate these notifications as well, and so do reverts using tools like "Restorer" (sometimes, if needed, I use this tool to revert more than one user at once, but it can also be used just like Rollback to revert one user -- it really makes no difference, and to use it, you don't have to be a sysop or a Rollbacker). So if it's about Krok6kola being upset because of notifications, they have two ways to avoid them: a) disable notifications in their Special:Preferences, or b) do only edits that are appropriate and don't require a revert.

If -- despite the above -- it's true at all that amongst all the rollbacks there were any abusive ones, there is no such reason for block in the COM:Blocking policy. I already stated this in the discussion, and kindly requested 1989 to leave me alone and let a neutral admin decide.

Why do I (and not only me) think that 1989 never should have imposed this block, even if it was justified?

In the AN/U discussion that took place back in June, 1989 was probably the most active contributor, with several hostile comments towards me and advocating of Krok6kola/Kalbbes, without any arguments on the contentual issue (categories), despite the fact that I didn't ignore questions and tried to explain them the issue in detail. They are known of further toxic comments targeted at me in the past, for example "Love you too [A.]Savin" just after I opposed their oversighter application. Probably this hostile approach is much older, for example they cannot forgive me my oppose at their RfA, and also the deletion of one of their uploads (though here I'm indeed sorry to have been a bit of rude; it's long ago, I don't know anymore why exactly).

So with all that said, I kindly request comments. It's a clearly inappropriate administrative action by 1989. Several admin colleagues already have agreed on this. What options could be there now?

An apology by 1989 and hiding the entry from my block log?
Desysop of 1989, as this is clearly not the first time that there is a problem with their administrative actions?
...?

Anyone who is willing to discuss here, please remain civil and judge on my contentual work in this issue, not on my person and/or old disputes. Thanks. --A.Savin 00:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lifting the block against A.Savin, this should have been a warning, not a block. Perhaps also Support mutual apology from both users to each other, but a forced apology does not really mean much anyhow. Oppose any strong sanctions against 1989. 1989 has stayed just within the letter of the policy on Commons in this case, they have warned A.Savin that the block was coming and stated what needed to be done to avoid it, and then once there was no complience the block was instituted. This is a bad way to act, and we should probably change the policy, requiring admins to operate differently, but it makes no sense to (at the same time) penalise 1989 for these actions, while keeping the policy that reads that their actions were appropriate. This is a larger problem within this community that needs to be resolved, and not something that can be used by everybody fighting each other on ANU. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 03:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Back in June, 1989 warned me in a similar situation, not to block Kalbbes. Despite the fact that I warned the user several times before I got close to blocking them (which I still didn't do). Double standards, no? --A.Savin 11:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see User:Krok6kola/Archive_2020#Vandalism_is_not_appreciated, your behavour in that thread was horrible, the fact that you use that fact that you did not block somebody as a moral justification tells a lot about this whole situation. You do know that accusing a person of vandalism is not an appropriate behaviour! You do know that telling a person not to contribute is not appropriate behavour! You do know that not even bothering to apologise after it has become clear how wrong you were is not appropriate for an admin! The funny thing is that you bring up double standards at 11:51 in a thread complaining about an admin temporarily blocking you because there was no way to take away your ability to behave the way you did... and then at 12:00 you write "Definitely, this overcat madness has to stop and if a temporary block of the user is the only way, it should be done in the end." This situation can be summarised as «A user makes a mistake with categories, madness insues», and this madness is not caused by that user. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 12:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want to draw attention to the last paragraph of my statement, but actually, I have no illusion that some people come just to stir up. Well, then... --A.Savin 13:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was talking only about the actions in this particular case. Your behaviour was horrible, you have used your admin powers to attempt to intimidate a person who has simply made a mistake, and who has asked you to back off. You did not do that. You should not have been banned for that, but simply should have received a warning. In that 1989 has made an error of judgement, that error should also result in them being warned to not do so again. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 14:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I Support the desysop discussion for 1989. What we have just seen was an out-of-process block on arbitrary, not policy-based grounds, and in additionally while being involved with the blocked user. Before the block, I warned then in the topic above that the policy does not allow for a block in this situation, and they basically replied that they do not care, and that if they think there is disruption, whatever broadly interpreted, there is a good reason block. This is not the first time they demonstrate such attitude. In this thread at the end of march, which they started after they have edit-warred with a checkuser whether the discussion can be closed, they treat another administrator, who lifted a clearly erroneous out-of-process block of their opponent, with a block. Having an administrator who does not follow the blocking policy and can block anybody in any situation is dangerous, and 1989 must be desysopped. The fact that they are one of the most active admins must not be a deterrent, we desysopped active admins before.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support desysop, as I have now to agree with Ymblanter. --A.Savin 11:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that user 1989 does not understand that he was wrong. I agree with user Jmabel. Blocking admins is not a correct way to solve problems. Unfortunately, As of this moment, desysop is inevitable. -- Geagea (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since no apologies are given and none seem to be expected, I Support a desysop request. Sealle (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sealle: As you explicitly cited perceived unresponsiveness, noting that a response has been posted below. GMG ^talk 19:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  - I appreciate them doing this, although this probably should have been done before my comment. My further decision will depend on opinions of fellow Commoners. Sealle (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I regretfully Support holding a desysop procedure. Blocking another admin while you are involved is one of the most severe sins an admin can commit. This isn't the first severe incicent. There's also the very recent severe incident from March. While 1989 wasn't the only one to blame for that clusterfuck, his role was culpable and included calling a female checkuser "hun". I genuinely hoped that 1989 would have learned from the incident in March, but he hasn't. Natuur12 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Natuur12: Can you please explain what means "hun"? I'm not able to understand this word, and even less in the context where 1989 used it. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Hun" is short for "honey" (in French, chérie); generally a term of endearment, but when said sarcastically to someone to whom you are not endeared, it is condescending, dismissive and, when said to a woman (i.e., why Natuur12 referenced "female checkuser"), can be misogynistic. Эlcobbola _talk 19:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no way shape or form misogynistic, and didn't mean it like that when I said it. The conversation gives clarify to why I responded in the manner I did. 1989_talk 19:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said you are, or even that the comment was--thus "can be". But was that remark condescending and dismissive, absolutely. Эlcobbola _talk 19:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't, just putting it out there. 1989_talk 19:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a colloqial short for "honney". It's normally affectionately towards (mostly) females, but if you put a specific inflection in your voice it can be a term that signifies talking down to somebody. In this case, I would read it in the same way as "dude", "pal", etc. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 19:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the answers.

Support desysop. I did not really like the behavior of 1989 during the last "big stories" with CUs, but it was even without be aware of this "hun" story. All this is inappropriate behavior for an administrator. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully support desysop. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support desysop, agree with everybody above --Stolbovsky (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1989, I read your response below and your apology to A.Savin. Unfortunately, this is not only about your dispute with A.Savin but your conducts as an administrator in general. Recklessness and hostility towards fellow editors is unhealthy for a collaborative and multilingual project. I am sorry, but I can no longer trust you with the block button and the toolset in general. Regards. T Cells^Talk 19:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are times where I may perform errors or be slightly uncivil, but it is what it is. I'm human. I'm not perfect. 1989_talk 19:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't blame me, I'm only human" is a worthless excuse. Humanity does not excuse bad behavior. T Cells^Talk 20:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't twist my words. 1989_talk 20:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any sanctions or desysop for 1989 - As per my statement above I feel A.Savin misused rollback. He was told to explain his reasoning which he sort of did but personally I felt it was not sufficient and as such supported a 24-48 block.

I personally believe 1989 did everything correctly and fairly. My only minor issue is that I disagreed with the length of the block but other than that I feel they've done everything correctly and fairly. –Davey2010^Talk 23:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sadly, but this is not his first time. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I try to avoid this kind of discussions but this time want to say a couple of things: 1. Please look at the revision history of File:Hina Rabbani Khar.png. This kind of permanent categorization mistakes may drive anybody crazy. I received my only one block in Commons (and left the place for many months) for not being able to stand to that kind of "permanent" wrong categorization by two users who are/were not newbies. (For the curious, one was from Turkey, like myself, and the other one had a user name that always reminds me we came from ashes we will become ashes. Or something like that. :) Therefore I understand the party that got mad about the constant categorization mistakes and probably did not act with enough patience. 2. OTOH I know 1989 and appreciate his adminship skills. I saw a few references to "previous similar acts" but I tend to see that claim and his response as similar to the position of the party sanctioned by him, action which caused this discussion. Perhaps 1989 used his patience just as A.Savin did with the other Commoner. In short, 1989 is a good, hard working admin and we need them. He should not have blocked his colleague for a week but maybe symbolically 24 hours or less. This discussion will be a lesson for him and I am sure he will not be brought to this panel again. No action is needed. Close and archive the case please. --E4024 (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Misuse and mishandling of other users should be taken more seriously if its made by admins rather than by users. Admins are given more trust compared to regular users and therefore should be more accountable in their acts. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 04:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Since yesterday, I had given myself time to think on my actions I performed recently. When I saw a thread in regards to a colleague, I responded accordingly. However, there was a point where I was accused of being biased and was told to let another admin handle the situation. I did not listen to their plead, and because of that, I was accused of being an involved admin and have gotten myself into this situation.

I would like to humbly apologize to A.Savin for refusing to cooperate with their request to allow someone else to respond, and performing a block I had no support for in regards to the blocking policy nor the community. I acted irrationally and I shouldn't have. I'd be more than willing to hide the block from their block log, and refraining from committing any admin actions against them that may be controversial moving forward. I'd really hate for things to end this way, and would like to be in good terms to continue my work in Commons. 1989_talk 19:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You apologized which I appreciate as something anyone would expect as the very minimal step; but I already tried several times to explain why the reverts (at least uttermost of them) were actually justified and what exactly is wrong with Krok6kola's activities and behaviour. By now, you ignored all contentual argumentation. Not only from this AN/U, also from June, which was unfair towards me too. This of course doesn't make me trust you, so at least, what exactly might make me believe that it would be better not to start a desysop at this point? And what Natuur12 pointed out, with the "hun" (it somewhat reminds me of your "Love you too Savin", which is an immature comment as well, but I would never state sth. like this to a knowingly female user whom I don't know closer), is not nice either, to say the least.

Regarding the block log entry, I'm still considering, if I should not better leave it unhidden, as a perfect demonstration of what an admin should not do. --A.Savin 20:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ignore anything. The reasoning you gave me is not a reason to misuse the rollback tool. It's meant for vandalism, and their edits are not vandalism. 1989_talk 20:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to persistently claim "their edits are not vandalism", in prejudice, obviously without having take a closer look at the edits in question, is surely one of indications that you are overchallenged with the sysop bit. --A.Savin 21:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look, it's not vandalism, whether you like the fact or not. If it's truly vandalism to you, then block them, and see what happens to you next. 1989_talk 21:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you cannot call it vandalism as a whole. You'd have to judge each edit individually. In this case, any fellow user would detect a big number of clearly inappropriate edits. And Krok6kola is not a newbie. They know exactly what they are doing. "Learning from mistakes" you can forget. But I don't think you're willing to review their edits individually. You and Krok6kola both are contributors of mere quantity, not quality. And your threats are unwelcome and ridiculous. Stop it immediately. --A.Savin 21:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COM:OVERCAT ≠ vandalism, my statement still stands. It seems you will continue to misuse rollback, which is not good on your part. You can critique my work however you like, I'm know what I'm worth. Also, I don't recall threatening you at all. Seems you took my words the wrong way. That was most certainly not my intention. 1989_talk 21:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info This case can be closed now, as I've started Commons:Administrators/Requests/1989 (desysop). --A.Savin 09:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Krok6kola

Does not respect COM:OVERCAT (part of Policy Commons:Categories) and makes a mess of categories as a result, see sections above about A.Savin and 1989 for details. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose any action against Krok6kola. The user has contributed more than 420,000 edits over the past 5 years and has never caused any significant problem during that time. AshFriday (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, that you are thinking very primitively. A user should not be judged merely on their editcount, otherwise we'd have to un-ban INC who had more than 1M edits, just as example. --A.Savin 12:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

INC created significant problems on numerous occasions. This user has not. AshFriday (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Only because they didn't upload porn, nor voted they in an RfD in favor of keeping it? --A.Savin 01:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that Kro6kola has gone against the established policy when it comes to categorisation. The funny thing is that I actually think that having overarching categories that are intersected by a machine rather than by human editors would be better. So rather than having "X at the location Y during the year Z" we have three categories X, Y, and Z and a tool that instersects them for a view identical to a regular category. The problem is that we do not have a tool that does so easily, search is not a good way to do that, and forcing users to write database queries is even worse as a solution. Therefore as it stands today, we have intersection categories, and people use them. Nobody can be forced to use such deep categorisation, I never categorise "photographs at date by location" at a level smaller than a country, but it would also be wrong of me to roll back somebody else's work if they do so. As such they need to read our policy and try to follow it closer. I, perhaps, Support a strong warning, but nothing that would immediately stop the user from contributing (so no block or similar sanctions). If they continue undoing the categorisation after that, we can consider a small block (3 days or so), but we are not there yet. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK, I have no clue why this thread is coming as late as just now, but as in Russia they say "better late than even later". Definitely, this overcat madness has to stop and if a temporary block of the user is the only way, it should be done in the end. --A.Savin 12:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Blocking is a last resort operation to save the project. I think a block warning is more appropriate here. However, the user's action here against A.Savin makes me doubt if we can AGF in this case. Ankry (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were warnings. How many warnings does it need? --A.Savin 18:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Krok6kola

Hello, This will be my only response here; I am not Admin and feared that reporting anyone here was not a good idea. But now here I am.

Background: originally A.Savin gave me three warning for vandalism in May 2020, in three day's time over over three edits. He only showed me two: one is a valid category Category:Shops in Sun Praire, Wisconsin that I had just created and I had added Category:Buildings in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin [25] and it is not vandalism; I was categorizing in Category:Wisconsin on a regular basis. The third was a "last warning" for mistakenly adding Category:Matara District instead of Category:Coasts of Matara, Sri Lanka to an image [26] that I would have remedied anyway. I have never received any warnings before. I am not a vandal. Since then I have had continuing problems with A.Savin. Some samples:
On June 3, 2020 Help desk question when A.Savin wrongly deleted a category for a mosque I made and moved the images into a category he made.
June 4, 2020 Deleting my categories when A.Savin continues to delete valid categories and I am told again to report him here.
In User:AFBorchert talk archive:

June 29, 2020 #Kalbbes (my former name)
July 12, 2020 #Please advise me
the comment from another that you idiot just leave me alone - from A.Savin to me did not help his case.

I apologize for using the Help Desk too much. I was confused when new (to me) editor suddenly reorganized the category system of Pakistan in a week or so. I asked for some explanations of the new category system including at the Village Pump where I pinged people as I was told but no one responded.
I deny that the few edits I made in question here destroyed the category system or endangered the project. If this is true, please show me the evidence. I also ask A.Savin for evidence that I have such a combination of incompetence and toxicity that I am comparable to the globally locked User:INeverCry.
Please do not punish anyone else on my account; just punish me if I deserve it. Sorry to bother you with this. Best, Krok6kola (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this really shall be your only response, this is rather poor level of self-defence. You're not an innocent victim of whoever, by no means. You insulted Colin, and never apologized. You blanked categories out of process. You harassed me on my talkpage for a void reason. You definitely damage Commons with your aggressive, disrespectful behaviour. And no, blocks are not punishments -- they are to stop and prevent damage to Commons. And yes, even COM:OVERCAT is official policy on Commons -- I'm sorry that you don't like it. --A.Savin 22:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to A.Savin

I did use bad judgment in my post to Colin, and would have apologized but he deleted it immediately. And he did defend you only because you pinged him, when he did not know why some other admins wanted your Admin privileges removed.

And you did add the ID to your cultural heritage image after I requested it.

If posting a request on your talkpage is harassment, that is a strange attitude for an Admin.

You asked for help (linked above) saying "I'm so sick, tired, and I only just want to die. I cannot do anything as sysop, because everybody tells now I'm involved and only "a conflict party". Help me". This was after an edit war that we both equally contributed to equally.

You called me an "idiot". You are supposed to be the adult in the room, being an Admin. But if you can't block me you just want to die?

At the Village Pump, another editor said "Activities in Pakistan" is a vague, useless category in his opinion. And the way the category was originally set up, an editor could only access the categories in it (Sport, Education, Politics) through "location" and "Pakistan". I was reverted when I tried to add them to the categories of Pakistan but now they are there. If you look at other countries, each one that has the category interprets the meaning differently. Brazil put "Transport" there, while India puts "Public speaking" under "Activities". What is your definition? Krok6kola (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"would have apologized [to Colin] but he deleted it immediately" wow, just wow. I feel no one in the world can help you anymore. I'm out here. --A.Savin 23:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A concern of mine

A.Savin, I was looking at the request you made to another Admin about a month ago Please some advice where you ask for advice on how to deal with me and you say I was extremely aggressive but the diff you give is not my comment but someone else's. I am hoping that any evidence you provide against me here is not misrepresenting me. I looked at some of your evidence and it did not seem to involve me all that much. And I am not doing any of this en masse as you seem to believe.

Also, in June you ask on the Category page what to do about Systematical OVERCAT violations and the responses seem to indicate it was not a great problem and was often warranted. Since you have never contacted me on my talk page to explain your concerns, I am not clear why you are so upset with me. Since I have over 424,000 edits, your concerns amount to an extremely small percentage of my edits and seem mostly a question of differing judgment and certainly not vandalism on my part. Krok6kola (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of personal images from wikimedia required, a week past after nomination, no action taken.

Account https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&user=Prompri&ilshowall=1 pls nuke or clean delete forever , all of the images I uploaded ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prompri (talk • contribs) 22:32, 20 August 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

1 file deleted as possible derivative; 1 file is still in an DR. --Túrelio (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:NicoleStugarts

This user, who obviously also contributed as User:NicoleEdnsessStuggarts, has done nothing but upload images related to a series of now-deleted pages at en.wp that were entirely a hoax. Suggest all uploads be deleted and possibly the user blocked as all images are out of scope. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nuked and both blocked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 170: / Line 170: @@
 {{Done}} I've left final warning on their talkpage; should they continue, please report. --[[User:A.Savin|A.Savin]] 13:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
+:: {{u|A.Savin}} Ignoring the fact that these edits have be manually reversed one by one, TylerKutschbach has presumably moved to just uploading on top of the old images so those are just removed that way (without updating the licensing box). It's not clear whether their versions are helpful or not. For example, see [[:File:Florida Presidential Election Results 1904.svg]]. Comparing [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/4/4e/20200822022514%21Florida_Presidential_Election_Results_1904.svg the prior version] to [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Florida_Presidential_Election_Results_1904.svg this version], a lot of the counties look to have been removed. This may be more accurate as (for example) Broward County was created in 1915 ''after'' the 1904 election but since no one provides sources, it's not clear whether or not this is more accurate or how the data should be displayed. I'd presume using counties from then is better since I don't know how would anyone get the data based on current counties anyway. Again, the main issue is a complete refusal to communicate. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 04:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 == User:A.Savin ==

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

Revision as of 04:02, 22 August 2020

Contents

A1Cafel

User:Obsuser

Repeated uploads of promotional images by User:Pkj19851

User:TintuArunav

Magog the Ogre: Why PD-ROC-Traffic Markings in Template:PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette

RogerRabbit888 - dubious claims of own work

D. Pedro I do Brasil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Disruptive edits

Shpernik088

User:Iwfksk 1104

User:ニャンコ6767

User:WastingDust281

Delete my uploads

User:TylerKutschbach removing categories

User:A.Savin

A.Savin blocked

Gjeon338

User:A furry fox

User:1989

Response

Krok6kola

deletion of personal images from wikimedia required, a week past after nomination, no action taken.

User:NicoleStugarts

Navigation menu

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

Revision as of 04:02, 22 August 2020

A1Cafel

User:Obsuser

Repeated uploads of promotional images by User:Pkj19851

User:TintuArunav

Magog the Ogre: Why PD-ROC-Traffic Markings in Template:PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette

RogerRabbit888 - dubious claims of own work

D. Pedro I do Brasil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Disruptive edits

Shpernik088

User:Iwfksk 1104

User:ニャンコ6767

User:WastingDust281

Delete my uploads

User:TylerKutschbach removing categories

User:A.Savin

A.Savin blocked

Gjeon338

User:A furry fox

User:1989

Response

Krok6kola

deletion of personal images from wikimedia required, a week past after nomination, no action taken.

User:NicoleStugarts

Navigation menu

Search