Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks 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-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
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	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}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~36
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-07: ~61

Other:

• Duplicates: ~4
• Advertisements/spam: ~2
• Personal photos/selfies: ~3
• Other speedy deletions: ~5
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~2
• Undeletion requests: ~10

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~4
• Interface admin: ~16
• Technical: ~1
• Template protection: ~12
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

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

User:A1Cafel removing deletion discussion template

I recently tagged File:Trump - protest (48001916147) (cropped).jpg for deletion, along with the parent image File:Trump - protest (48001916147).jpg, such that the deletion template on both images points to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump - protest (48001916147).jpg. user:A1Cafel persists in removing the deletion template from the former image, and replacing it with one pointing to a second, duplicate discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump - protest (48001916147) (cropped).jpg, ignoring the note I left in reply to them at the original deletion discussion. I have redirected the second deletion discussion to the first, but that has also been reverted.

Most recently, I asked them on their talk page to desist, but they have again persisted, and have once again removed the original deletion template and reverted my other edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs)

At the beginning, I tagged File:Trump - protest (48001916147) (cropped).jpg as copyvio derivative works. Andy remove the tag without giving adequate explain. Also, Andy tagged File:Trump - protest (48001916147).jpg for deletion, without giving a rational reason to delete, possibly with the same reason. IMO it is a revengeful nomination. The user explained that in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump - protest (48001916147).jpg, both files are included and so there is no need to open a new DR. But in the above DR, the user fails to show clearly that both files are being nominated, and it may cause confusion.

However, Andy refuse to listen to my reason and put it to here. That's fine, let the community listen to it. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like talking at cross purposes rather than disruption.

In general if the parent image of a derived work is worthy of a deletion discussion, then the parent images should be the ones with a DR by default, with derivatives added to it.

There are past DRs for this particular balloon. It would be worth cross linking to those.

1. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump baby balloon
2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump Baby Balloon.jpg
3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Baby Trump blimp and smaller inflatable - front view 1.jpg

As all the past DRs on an initial search have the same delete outcome, there's not really much to debate here. The main photographs where the balloon is the focus (so by definition de minimis does not apply) should be deleted, along with any crops made. --Fæ (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it's disruption, but by A1Cafel: see my comment on A1Cafel's talk page, and their response, and their subsequent continuing reverts, and now this very section, ignoring the one above, and with the false claims "remove the tag without giving adequate explain", accompanied by a misleading diff (the real diff is encompasses two consecutive edits, not just the first of them, in which I legitimately converted the speedy to a deletion request, as stated above) and "revengeful nomination". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This section appears to be a retaliation for the one preceding it (and of which it is now a subsection), of which A1Cafel was notified some time earlier, and which they appear to have ignored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Truly, one can hang onto negativity and behave through that negativity, or one can COM:AGF and get on with doing stuff. It is fully and truly one's own choice. Here we assume good faith and assume that it's not easy to communicate only in writing without any input from face or inflection. Very easy to make arguments happen, and easier to hold grudges. Instead of giving free rent in your brain to harmful feelings, please assume nothing was intentional, forgive and move along. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I assumed good faith the first time I was reverted, and the second, and when I left an explanatory note on A1Cafel's talk page; but after that I realised that such an assumption was misplaced, as their post here confirms. I do not, however, hold a "grudge" (so much for assuming good faith!). HTH. Meanwhile the initial issue I reported - that a file had its deletion template intentionally removed, and is now being discussed in two venues, remains unresolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted the crop and kept the original image after balloon was cropped out. Both deletion requests were useful: one of the images was deleted and the other was not (after cropping). Please give a hand to each other and remain friends. Taivo (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Aesopmerit

Special:Contributions/Aesopmerit - starting deletion requests with inappropriate rationales, eg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sun Club Hot Oil Wresting 2012-05.jpg. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Think I've nuked all the contributions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Likely copyright violation

A recent image was uploaded to Flickr, then uploaded here and cleared by the FlickreviewR 2 bot. However, this post on FaceBook appears to deem it copyrighted (or at least belongs to another individual):

• https://www.facebook.com/1602623500021325/posts/the-screamin-delta-demon-was-a-one-of-a-kind-bobsled-style-ride-it-served-middle/2370264003257267/

I would have taken this to the VP forum first, but Wacky Windjammer is uploading in mass batches, of which a significant number are being flagged for having unfree Flickr licenses or for being potential copyright violations. Many of these images are then inserted into Wikipedia articles by various sock accounts. It's worth noting that there was an identical user name in use over at Wikipedia that was tagged as a sock account and blocked. It may be time to take action over here as well. It appears they are going through great lengths to circumvent policies and guidelines at both sites. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

 Info: After having looked at the EXIF infos of the images uploaded to flickr I blacklisted their account on Commons:Questionable Flickr images. --Achim (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done: I tagged all uploads sourced from flickr account Bradley Mason adding {{Flickrreview}}, so they have been rechecked and added to Category:Flickr images from bad authors.

 Not done regarding actions against Wacky Windjammer: I checked their uploads since May and dindn't find suspicious ones. Their block on en:wp looks questionable to me. --Achim (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Achim: Feel free to check out the SPI archive here if you're interested to learn more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bradley026258/Archive

There has been a lot of disruption across the board from accounts associated with Wacky Windjammer, and socks that have come after that account was blocked have frequently posted Windjammer's images in Wikipedia articles. It's what led me here. Up to you how you handle this in the Commons, but I did my part. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Jurajec13

Continuation of blocked User:Jurajec12 activities (massive upload of non-free content, [1]) under new username. Now using purpose Flickr account [2] to make an impression of CC-BY images and justify their import to Commons. --Teslaton (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

fwiw, they also appear to be blocked on several other wikis for the same issue. Maybe time to indef? Frood (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The new account is indefinitely blocked for block evasion. I would not be opposed to a extending the block on main account. Between flickrwashing and sockpuppetry, it's clear that this user is intentionally undermining Commons core policies. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Seamenboyz

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

All of his uploads are low quality pictures of his genitals, 63 of them by my count. Despite 27 notices of deletion and a {{Nopenis}}, he continues uploading them. His username alone suggests he's not here to contribute (and that might be a policy violation in itself). Frood (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Indeffed as NOTHERE, uploads nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Verdy p and User:Jmabel

On what should have been a straightforward discussion of categories, User:Verdy p is choosing instead (or in addition) to make totally false accusations about my behavior. In particular: After he and I clearly could not come to consensus at User talk:Verdy p#Regions of Spain, I posted there "Clearly you and I are not going to come to an agreement on this. We need to bring this to a broader group and get consensus. If you have a specific, reasonable suggestion on how to do." 7 or so hours later, with at multiple intervening posts from him on his talk page, including at least one (7 minutes after mine) on that thread, I decided he was not responding and started Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Regions of Spain.

He then came to that page and rather than simply engage the substance of the matter, wrote, "The statement of Jmabel is false, I've responded correctly each time: he just posted his new response incorrectly above the response I had made before his own on my talk page (I've placed it back where it should be). given the placement, he can't ignore that he read my response on the same section where he inserted his new comment." As can easily be seen when I inserted my comment it was at the bottom of the section; his next post in the section is seven minutes later, below mine, and ignores mine.

When he wrote, "The statement of Jmabel is false…", etc., I responded, "I would really rather stick to the substance of the matter, but are you actually claiming that I somehow faked a timestamp to make my post appear to have been 7 minutes before yours, rather than that you went past it without happening to notice it? Because if you are claiming that, let's take it up at AN/U [my typo, should have been COM:AN/U, I later corrected that] instead of here." As you can see, he chose to continue arguing the point at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Regions of Spain, and is not backing down from what I believe to be a totally false claim about what I did.

I believe the evidence is crystal clear, and that Verdy p is simply refusing to admit an oversight on his part, and is instead casting aspersions against me. - Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I was not in conflict with you before you posted a conflict because you accused me (somewhere else) of not replying to you, for the message you posted on my talk page 9 hours before your accusation made on my talk page then on the Category in discussion. You just don't admit that I made a response in correct time, and that you even saw it by editing the section of my talk page where my repsosne was there long before your edit. May be you forgot to scroll down and did not see it, you posted at a random position in the editing page.

I replied to you first at 15:22, you then posted after 22:00 the false claim that I did not reply to your initial message posted at 15:07... Sorry for you, but 15 minutes to reply is a very reasonnable delay. It then took you 9 hours (much more than me) before making your accusation. verdy_p (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Verdy p: Unless I am misreading, your reply at 15:22 does not appear to address anything I said, and certainly does not suggest a way to proceed. It appears to be completely directed at User:TUBS remark upstream of mine. If any of that was addressed to me, and especially if any of it suggests a way to proceed, could you quote the phrase or sentence in question, since if it is there I'm obviously missing something.

Also: you said I "posted [my] response incorrectly above the response [you] had made before [mine] own on [your] talk page." Can you indicate the diff that shows that? Because it obviously is not the case with the one I link twice above. If you are complaining that I interspersed my remark about not being replied to directly under the remark that was not replied to, yes, I did that, and I would think it was entirely reasonable to do so; it would have been quite unclear what it referred to if I placed it at the bottom. - Jmabel ! talk 02:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

No the message at 15:22 references a previous thread (with another user) only as an element, but it was really intended for you. I was not replying to TUBS, and there was no conflict with him, I had replied to him and my reply was accepted by TUBS. I did not mix the threads. You just did not want to read it. You wanted to initiate a new (but related) topic. I had even agreed with you on some topics (notably naming categories for municipalities with "in" like you suggested, but also because it is coherent with other categories, including international ones). verdy_p (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe you have me and TUBS (or some other third party no other third party, it was TUBS, here's your 15:22 edit - jm 04:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)) confused.

I said nothing about naming categories for municipalities with "in". Although I linked it my edit twice above, let me quote myself verbatim: "@Verdy p: clearly you and I are not going to come to an agreement on this. We need to bring this to a broader group and get consensus. If you have a specific, reasonable suggestion on how to do that, I am open on that. Otherwise, I'll propose a way to proceed." Again, we both seem to agree that you posted after that, so presumably you either saw it or went past it without happening to notice it. And if anything you said addressed it, I still can't find it, but please feel free to point it out. So I went ahead and started a CFD, which seems to me like a pretty reasonable and neutral forum to discuss a category. I stated my case there, and wrote, among other things, "I'll leave it to Verdy p to state the case for why this category should exist and, if so, why this is a good name for it." Surely you would not have wanted me to try to paraphrase your side of the disagreement rather than invite you to state your case yourself. - Jmabel ! talk 04:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I now see that there is at least one point where I was confused: rereading, I see that his complaint about placement of a post is presumably not about my original 15:15 post, it is about my post notifying him that I was starting Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Regions of Spain. Since he didn't provide a diff, I did not understand what he referred to. But (1) this seems a trivial thing and certainly not a good reason for him to derail Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Regions of Spain, (2) he had not responded to my 15:15 post post, he had posted later and ignored it (AGF is hard here: on an AGF basis I offered the possibility that he had just overlooked it, but he asserts that is not the case), (3) the fact remains that starting a CFD is a normal way to move forward when we are disagreeing about a category and to try to get a reasonable broader discussion. People tend to shy away from a topic discussion that becomes a place where people attack each other's conduct rather than focus on the matter at hand. - Jmabel ! talk 14:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there no comment from anyone here, either that one or the other of us has behaved either correctly or incorrectly? - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I warned Verdy p to be civil.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I was perfectly civil. I just defended my case because the accusation above was false. I was correct with Jmbabel and responded him. He refused to read me (diff) and altered the order of talks (diff) in a now demonstrated attempt to disguise the time: that's exactly when he started this thread here with a false statement). And I've even made changes taking his remarks into account. He did not take this effort into account. There's no reason to threaten me. Because I don't see where I was "uncivil", when I attempted to negociate but he just started to refuse any form of negocation by saying that he would not search any agreement.

There's the ultimate proof in the diff of my talk page that I responded in 15 minutes to his message before he started complaining 9 hours later (and posted a complaint on my talk ABOVE my reply to him.

The reponse I made was perfectly on topic with his demand. I think he just was confused by the fact that another user talks to my talk page in the middle before he read my reponse, and he just looked at the wrong thread. I urge Jmbabel to insect the two diffs: they proove that what he claims here was wrong. He even mixed the topic by giving a link to an unrelated topic in Venezuela (for a change I made much longer before and completely separately from what he was discussing), without any explaination (completely out of his initial topic). Visibly, Jmbabel doesn't understand how diffs work. verdy_p (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, "If you have a specific, reasonable suggestion on how to do that, I am open on that. Otherwise, I'll propose a way to proceed." was posted by User:Jmabel in this first edit with correct timestamp "15:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)" at indent level 1. Seven minutes later, User:Verdy_p posted in the same section in this second edit with correct timestamp "15:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)", changing the indent level of the first edit to 2 and adding an (inexplicably level 1) response apparently to User:TUBS' previous level 2 response, without addressing anything Jmabel wrote. Thus, Verdy_p's statements "The statement of Jmabel is false, I've responded correctly each time: he just posted his new response incorrectly above the response I had made before his own on my talk page" are demonstrably false, and amount to an uncivil personal attack. I support a sanction on that basis, as well as for resurrecting a category against consensus. I applaud Jmabel's evenhanded approach here, avoiding threats and blocks as an involved party, and I encourage his colleagues to practice meatball:DefendEachOther.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 04:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I am rather confident I did not "post a link to an unrelated (or even a related!) topic in Venezuela". @Verdy p: , can you provide the diff that shows that? If I really did such a thing, then maybe I've been misunderstanding what you are unhappy about. - Jmabel ! talk 04:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

To make things clearer: do you realize that you've replied several times in the wrong place and that I had to move your message in the correct place where it hsould have been ? You used the wrong thread with TUBS to post a comment, and this caused havoc: I have then moved it back to the correct thread in the correct order. But the difgfs I provided in the NoA board is clear: you misused the talk page and placed in the wrong place (twice); this may explain why you did not see my reply where I had proposed something that you then decided to ignore bny positing again a complin above my response which was polite and poposed something that was clearly in agreement with your comment (when you asked for changing "of" into "in" for municipalities). verdy_p (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

1. I cannot answer a vague accusation that I've "replied several times in the wrong place". I do not think that has happened, but I'd be willing to see evidence. Is there anyone here (other than Verdy p) who thinks Verdy p has provided evidence of my doing that?
2. I have literally no idea what "the difgfs I provided in the NoA board" refers to. Can someone enlighten me?
3. I am pretty confident I never asked for changing "of" into "in" for municipalities, in this or any other context. I am certain I did no such thing in this context or any other relevant context in the last 30 days.
4. Similarly, I have, to the best of my knowledge, written nothing about Venezuela either in this context or any other in the last 30 days.
5. Verdy p keeps making statements here that have no basis in reality, and deflecting from the issue that he turned a CFD into a battleground. Also, I'm getting very tired of being lied about. I am so sure that I did not do these last two things that I hereby offer that I will resign my adminship on Commons if he can provide evidence acceptable to any other administrator here that I did either of them. - Jmabel ! talk 21:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Jmabel: I’ve encountered this user in the past, here and in other venues (Unicode-L and FotW-ml), and this behaviour of his is not a surprise for me. I fully understand and sympathize with you predicament, although there’s not much in the way of advice I can provide. I for one value (at least in non-meatspace environments) collaboration quality over collaboration ritual, and I rather work shoulder-to-shoulder with an unpleasant fellow who does good work than with someone nice but ineffective. The recent dealings with Verdy_p I had concerning {{RomanCat}} were fraught with the same kind of wild-eyed accusations, inescrutable typos, unusual threading and indenting habits (agressively enforced), byzantine misunderstandings, aboundant bad faith, goal-post shifting, and much tangential ranting (as in the case at hand: «Spain and Morocco mistreated the Sahrawi therefore I’m right about categorization of subdivisions» — not an actual quote). However, in spite of that and what I feel are inferior outcomes in what concerns graphic layout and automated categorization, I gave up my position in that particular conflict and let him do his thing, and by the end some roadblocks had been fixed — some which I had been incompetent or tardy fixing myself. It wasn’t easy, but I left his accusations hanging there, knowing he’d move to the next shiny object, and to the next interpersonal conflic. I am sure that YMMV, as usual (and not always Verdy_p has something good to bring to the table, regardless of his table manners), and that an admin cannot allow themselves the luxury of ignoring bad behaviour as I can, but what I can say is that you’re not alone. And of course you should not resign over this: The number of good admins left in Commons would decrease by a very wide margin. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't even recall any activity in the FOTW mailing list may be a few posts but I have no track of this, this must have been MANY years ago, more than 15 years at least). So this is completely out of scope here.

And in the Unicode ML I've got some respect and many contributions (more in the past), but at a time where there was a lot more talks there for complex issues and different solutions to propose, that were later normalized (e.g. complex issues with Hebrew, normalizations, bidi, ...). I am even granted by Unicode as an author in the standard (and in the past I was also an Unicode member). I made significant changes for CLDR in French, reported and disccused iossues in the CLDR survey tool, experimetned with various algorithms and made multiple tests, and reported many bugs in early beta version of some Unicode version before their release.

I contribute a lot, and sometimes people don't agree and unavoidly there will be some users that will have other opinions or solutions, different from mine. May be what I did could have created a problem with some other uses, but despite my efforts, I test a lot and not all is detected. I document a lot of things as well (in this wiki many things are left undocumtned and cause later unexpected behavior when there's not even any documentation or test pages. I've made many contributions and continue improving this wiki for translatability, and better performance (if possible), or with transitional edits that will provide a comptibility before some needed changes. I try to minimize the impact on others and improve the reusability with less complexity. verdy_p (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It concerns me that a user can make accusations, exercise bad faith and be generally rude to other users and seemingly escape censure. From what I read in this thread, Verdy_p will probably disregard any and all warnings but we can't just do nothing. Gbawden (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

---

As an involved party, I feel very uncomfortable coming in again, but no one else seems to be moving this forward. If any other administrator will take responsibility here, I will gladly stop posting in any role other than that of an aggrieved (and accused) party.

Picking up at 02:59, 17 July 2020:

• User:Jeff G. warned User:Verdy p at User talk:Verdy p#Please be civil about the latter's incivility in this matter; Verdy p, despite having handled literally all prior discussion of this and literally all current discussion on his user talk page in English replied in French, a language Jeff G. has never given indication of understanding, rejecting any claim that he (Verdy p) has been uncivil, accusing me of being l'agresseur, and repeatedly changing my username into "Jmbabel": possibly a slip of the finger -- he does make more typographical errors than the average user -- or possibly a further deliberate insult.
• Verdy p then came back to this page with another completely made-up story about me, no diffs to support it (because there are none), about something about 'changing "of" into "in" for municipalities'.
  • Stepping momentarily into my role as an involved party: I am getting very tired of dealing with accusations that are not simply unsubstantiated but patently false. If there is evidence, bring it forward. But on at least two of these points (this and the thing about Venezuela), there certainly isn't. Those two are lies pure and simple. It is possible that I am mistaken or at fault on some other points.
• User:Tuvalkin weighed in describing similar behavior by Verdy p on other occasions.
• User:Gbawden weighed in lamenting that something ought to be done but offering nothing in particular.

So here we are, over four days into this (and over 24 hours since any comment by anyone, which is why I have waded back in).

In the following I am not speaking at all as an admin: I am speaking as an aggrieved party, and I would like an admin to address this:

• I started this AN/U section because Verdy p derailed discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Regions of Spain by making personal attacks on me and turning a CFD into a toxic cesspool where no one is likely to come and discuss the substance of the matter. I would like an admin, or someone else who is not themselves an aggrieved party, to remove his personal attacks on me from that page. I haven't the stomach to read it all closely, but I suspect that they are so woven in with whatever on-topic remarks he may have made that the only reasonable way to do this is to strike his remarks entirely and allow him to restate his case without resorting to personal attacks, and I would hope there would be a serious sanction against him if he simply uses this as an opportunity to attack me anew.
• I was under the impression, perhaps a misimpression, that personal attacks are considered on Commons to be a pretty serious matter. But perhaps I am wrong. Reading between the lines, it seems Tuvalkin and Gbawden are saying something to the effect that because Verdy p is a valuable contributor, and because he is unlikely to behave better even if admonished, I should just suck it up. Have I understood correctly? Because, if so, I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to do that. I believe I've also been a valuable contributor here, and I'm entitled to a decent level of respect: in particular I'm entitled not to have someone bully me and lie about me. If that is not a reasonable expectation on my part, could some uninvolved admin (which basically means any admin but me) say so in so many words? Conversely, if that is a reasonable expectation, then it shouldn't matter how good a contributor Verdy p is: he has already been warned by Jeff G., persevered after the warning (denying he had done anything wrong, saying the fault was mine, coming to this page and telling another lie about me). I would think that for that he should be blocked, and should be subject to successively longer blocks if his bad behavior continues.
• Again: if something is also wrong with my behavior, call me out. I promise not to lash out at you, if what you say has any basis in reality. I already admitted above that I was wrong on one point here, where I simply had not correctly understood what Verdy p said. But being lied about, with no evidence provided because none exists is another matter.

Jmabel ! talk 01:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

That's entirely wrong. I just complined about the false statemernt you made about me whan you affirmed that I had not replied to you. This was wrong. The only personall attack was here from you against me. I have never attacked you pêrsonnally. all I did was to defend myself against your false statement. verdy_p (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, I believe I am right here and Verdy p is wrong. On the off-chance that I am the one who is in the wrong here, I will suspend my activity on Commons at this time, and allow up to a week for someone else to take action here. If anyone needs something from me on this, or if it reaches a resolution please either write something on my user talk page or email me. I will not be checking my Commons watchlist. - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I've taken a look at this. My observations:

• There exists a consensus that Category:Regions of Spain is a misleading name: Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/12/Category:Regions of Spain (closed in 2010). As a result, this category was turned into a redirect to Category:Comarcas of Spain by Jmabel.
• In 2017, Category:Regions of Spain was turned into a redirect to Category:Autonomous communities of Spain by Verdy p. This does not appear to have been challenged.
• This conflict appears to have been started through this edit by Verdy p which restored Category:Regions of Spain as a proper category without opening a new discussion. I do not know whether Very p overlooked the previous CfD but a new consensus should have been found before restoring this.
• Jmabel opened a discussion about this change at Verdy p's talk page: [3]. Note that Jmabel refers to the previous discussion.
• There are now obviously three options: Verdy p restores the previous state, or Jmabel as the closing admin of the previous discussion and Verdy p agree with each other, or a new community discussion gets opened.
• On 15:15, 15 July 2020, Jmabel posts suggests to open a community discussion. Quote: “clearly you and I are not going to come to an agreement on this. We need to bring this to a broader group and get consensus. If you have a specific, reasonable suggestion on how to do that, I am open on that. Otherwise, I'll propose a way to proceed.”
• On 15:22, 15 July 2020, Verdy p, responds to the same thread, apparently in response to this post by TUBS. Verdy p does not address Jmabel's post in this edit. It is very likely that this wasn't considered as this could have been an edit conflict, as there are just seven minutes difference. Note, however, that Verdy p, inserted a colon in front of Jmabel's post.
• Afterwards, Verdy p responded to other threads at his talk page but apparently missed Jmabel's post: 16:24, 22:51.
• On 00:06, 16 July 2020‎, Jmabel opened Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Regions of Spain with a very brief rationale.
• On 00:23, Jmabel extended the newly opened CfD. Quote: “I invited him to set up a venue for discussion; he has edited several more times in that section of his talk page without responding to that, so I am setting this up as a venue for discussion.”
• On 00:24, Jmabel announced that Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Regions of Spain has been opened. Quote: “Since you didn't respond to that, I have started Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Regions of Spain.” This post was inserted behind his previous post and before the response by Verdy p to TUBS on 15:22.
• On 00:28, 16 July 2020, Verdy p responded. Quote: “False, I've responded multiple times, but don't expect a response to the minute, I've responded in correct time ! See just before the message (that I've move below my response posted well before your message)!!!”. Verdy p appears to be upset and apparently considers his response at 15:22 as a response to Jmabel's post on 15:15. But I cannot follow Verdy p here as Jmabel's question on how to get a consensus remained unanswered. Jmabel had every right to open this community discussion as this important step was skipped by Verdy p before.
• In two edits, on 00:30, Verdy p reacted on the CfD as follows: “The statement of Jmabel is false, I've responded correctly each time: he just posted his new response incorrectly above the response I had made before his own on my talk page (I've placed it back where it should be). given the placement, he can't ignore that he read my response on the same section where he inserted his new comment.” This comment is truly irritating as that point Jmabel had at the new CfD nowhere refered to the previous discussion at Verdy p's talk page, just to the previous consensus 10 years ago. Since then, the new CfD got derailed with a discussion that is no longer about whether we should have a category named Regions of Spain or not.

In summary, I find that Jmabel acted with perfect diligence. He didn't revert despite a previous consensus, he talked directly to Verdy p, and, when there was no agreement, Jmabel was open to suggestions where and how to seek a consensus, and, when no response came to that point, he opened a new discussion and notified Verdy p about it. While it is easy to have a misunderstanding during the middle of the night, we still find ourselves here now several days later at this unfortunate thread. Verdy p, it is time you retract from this right now. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC), timeline extended with 00:23 and 00:24, one notice struck as I overlooked a statement by Jmabel. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

But I maintain that I did not attack Jmbabel directly. He just claims that I did not reply to his message in my talk page, whwhich was wrong. But then decided to post somewhere else, affirming thatI did not reply (this was wrong, I just resaid that, to defend myself because I was cited by him). Then he reposted here (once again without notigying me), but also making the same wrong claim. all that was a misunderstanding. I've never attaked Jmbabel like what he claims, I've just defended myself because he was the only one to attack me personnally (naming me without notiying me directly on diferent pages), jsut to refer to his initial post on my talk page, to which I replied correctly and absolutely not with any form of "agression". I even proposed him solutions that he just chose to ignore. When he posted on the two pages (other than mine) to complain this occured at least 9 hours (more for this page) after I had replied him on my talk page.

So his claims came long after and were unexpected. He had initially asked me (on my talk page) to propose something, and that's exactly what I did. My reply there was absolutely not any attack. All the rest (in the CFD and then here) was completely unexpected. And only Jmbabel started these two separate talks, while continuting to ignore the reply I had correctly made on my talk page.

I have followed the rules. Jmbabel did not so I was required to defend myself on the two separate talks where I was cited with the same initial false statement (that I would nnot have replied him). May be he did not understand my reply but this is not a valid reason for complaining later elsewhere and affirming I was incorrect with him, like he did against me. verdy_p (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

PhotoBooth11

• PhotoBooth11 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

User keeps on reverted British MP's portraits like File:Official portrait of Seema Kennedy crop 2.jpg to the 2020 version, but the 2020 version already existed. The user cannot give a good reason of his revert. He has been warned by Tm and Fæ at User talk:PhotoBooth11#Photos parliament.uk and User talk:PhotoBooth11#Your overwrites. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• You have already reverted the issues PhotoBooth11 (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

A1Cafel have you checked if someone have told PhotoBooth11 why we do not overwrite photos and perhaps given a link to COM:OW? If not that could be a good place to start. --MGA73 (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: You can see his talk page. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Moves

Please have a look at "boob" moves by User:Aditya Kabir. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done I see two moves by User:Aditya Kabir, one of which already had a talk page post that suggested the new name, to names that are more colloquial but more accurate (and frankly there aren't non-colloquial yet accurate names). I don't see any attempt by you to communicate with him on his talk page or on the category talk pages. Except in urgent cases of disruption, please attempt to resolve matters by direct communication first before assuming admin intervention is necessary. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Persistent reuploads of the same files from different accounts

User:Amitpopatdhakane were blocked for the reuploads of copyrighted and out of scope/self-promotional files. then there appears another account User:Amitamitdd which is uploading the same files and creating the same articles on mrwiki, hiwiki, enwiki. These new files have clear watermark which says "Uploaded by Amit Dhakane" like File:File:Bhairvanath_Mandir.jpg and many other files has it. So I am forced to believe that, this is a block evasion and all of the files are reuploads of the earlier deleted files. They have been warned about copyvios and out of scope files too. Please have a look and do the needful. thanks QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 08:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Question to admins more experienced than I am in similar matters: is a checkuser needed here, or can we just assume this is a recreation of a blocked account based on similar behavior, and block it on that basis? - Jmabel ! talk 17:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Jmabel: Well, it certainly seems to pass the duck test, but then I don't have access to deleted files here.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 20:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted most uploads of Amitamitdd as copyright violations. But he hasn't uploaded anything during last 12 months and he stopped uploading copyvios after he was warned, so I do not see a need to block him. Taivo (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Flickrwashing by User:The Little Platoon

The Little Platoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been uploading copyrighted content (which I'm currently going through and marking for speedy) from a Flickrwashing using Flickr account named "thelittleplatoon1790" with M A as the real name (archive). The user has also uploaded photographs with OTRS, could someone review these to ensure that these are genuine and haven't been forged and spoofed. Bidgee (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

User notified of the AN/U. Bidgee (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I have blacklisted the Flickr account and warned the user Gbawden (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

All uploads from that flickr account deleted Gbawden (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Serial copyright violator Elambassery

I found yet another serial copyright violator. This editor, Elambassery, has taken photos off the web and "licensed" them to us falsely. He even leaves in the website he stole them from. Please block user. Elizium23 (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Per policy I have warned them. Given the amount of copyvios on what appears to their first day it is a final warning Gbawden (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)