Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

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

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

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
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
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


  • Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
  • 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.

Mmedstereast and bulk categorisation changes to DRG Class 44 etc[edit]

Mmedstereast (talk · contribs)

Ping @Tsungam: and @Yann: as recently involved.

A large overnight run (hundreds) to move a lot of content on preserved German steam locos from the per-loco categories to the broader per-class category, leaving the loco categories empty and likely for speedy deletion. e.g. [1] [2]

It's questionable whether this should have been done. I would oppose it. If "they should be in the parent cat" is really vital, then they should be there in addition (I wouldn't oppose that, if other editors wanted it). But as it is, it destroys the per-survivor cats and is tantamount to a bulk category deletion. So as an absolute minimum, there should have been prior discussion of this. Magnus has already reverted a few, but really this needs a big admin mallet and a bulk rollback.

Some other changes, e.g. [3] seem reasonable.

There's also a recent SPI Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mmedstereast which closed in an unclear fashion, although the user page is still tagged as a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bulk rollback for Puminuno (talk · contribs) would be useful too, as they've jumped onto the current situation. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually right. In 2015, users wanted to remove categories because they were redundant, now they wanted to restore categories. Some users are sinking. First rewerted and deleted new categories, now revert SD request. the categorization rules lie fallow. Anarchy is rampant on this site, administrators are inconsistent. It's not worth getting involved. Even if you want to correct something that outraged the editors, it turns out that you are doing something wrong. In a few years, someone will want to create new categories, then there will be an uproar again. Over and over again. --Mmedstereast (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that in locomotive series in other countries doesn't exist separate categories for one locomotive. Existence separate categories for 1-2 photos of one from many locomotives within one locomotive's class is making a mess on Commons. User (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log46.76.30.119 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log5.60.27.239 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log31.1.80.89 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log made in 2015 many separate categories according to locomotive numbers. His editions were mass reverted. Categories make by him were deleted. These editions have been criticized by the editors. [4][5][6][7]. In many cases the locomotive numbers were made up. In one case, the category was created for locomotive model! It was absurd that separate categories were created even for EDV numbers. Therefore, in order to standardize the categorization, I remove redundant and counterproductive categories. it's really funny how someone creates hundreds of categories for separate numbers, users were indignant and deleted some categories, but when it turned out to be too many, abandoned the problem. Now, when someone wants resolve the problem with it, the situation repeats itself, but now suddenly are defenders of these changes. In 2015 users wanted deleted categories because there were reduntant, now wanted restore categories. Seen on commons is problem with rules of categorisation. The editors change their minds like a flag in the wind. --Mmedstereast (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you thought there was a case to make against these, then why didn't you try to make it beforehand? Especially if you thought there was such widespread support to remove them. But you didn't, and for a change this broad (even if you're right) you need to involve other editors first.
Also your claim "locomotive series in other countries doesn't exist separate categories for one locomotive" is simply untrue. Now I don't advocate this as a general practice for locos that are still in service, but here we're talking about the relatively rare examples that have been preserved after withdrawal. For those we certainly justify having per-example categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First I had to analyze it, after thinking and analysis , I found that many separate categories actual are reduntant because contain 1-2 pictures and some categories are not tragic at first glance but I noticed a dangerous precedent, when are creating separate numbers for EDV numbers. Some locomotive sometimes has two categories for separate periods of designations that is Deutsche Bundesbahn or Deutsche Reichsbahn. Besides, with a certain limit value of the number of photos, there should be separate categories? Categories for just a few photos are reduntant. Like making a separate categories for locomotives as monuments and categories for this same locomotives from the time of operation. ockham's razor is in my opinion the best way. --Mmedstereast (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could address issues like that by adding the images as well to the class category. Or by limiting the per-loco categories to one per physical example and using longer, composite names. This is done a lot for French classes where there were several railway companies and classes were renamed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please make corrections yourself, you are in action only when you need to pay attention to someone. Your inconsistency is acting on your unreliability anyway. On the exampple 18 201 and 02 0201-2 are designations of this same locomotive and existing two separate categorie are unsense. In example polish locomotives we have four or five changes of designation in history. As you can see the editors the editors don't mind making a rubish bin from this portal Category:Express passenger tender locomotive 18201 in Bebra (2012), existing categories for any places where was photographed locomotive is disorder. 18 201 is a fame locomotive and was in many places. Commons is a cesspool in which administrators are drowning apparently they like it. Never wrestle with a pig – it gets mud all over you and the pig likes it. --Mmedstereast (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)--Mmedstereast (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mmedstereast: Take back that personal attack.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about the previous speaker. The problem is general and does not concern just one editor. Instead of finding a solution, you can only pick on me. There are no uniform rules for categorization? --Mmedstereast (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mmedstereast: We allow categories with one member, as well as flat list categories.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mmedstereast: I don't know if you are right or not, but attacking people will make you blocked very soon. You better keep a polite language, and discuss pleacefully. Yann (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a category with one photo of the steam engine is acceptable? A peaceful discussion is difficult, as I have shown, the administrators' opinion is different from 2015. As can be seen in the discussion at that time, there was also a great uproar. at least I spoiled your holidays and you have to deal with me instead of spending time with your family. --Mmedstereast (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I Symbol support vote.svg Support action, this edit admits to trolling to spoil our holidays.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now Allforrous is trying to get the emptied categories speedily deleted.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted. Yann (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked Allforrous for edit-warring. Yann (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I think I've reverted what's needed (but may of course have missed some or otherwise goofed)

However we're now missing a number of categories (these are just a few of them) that Túrelio speedy deleted soon after they'd been emptied. These (and the others) need to be restored. Yet again, this is why speedy deletions of empty categories must not be done immediately, and if the category has (as here) been emptied out of process.

Andy Dingley (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Thanks.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Restored. However I think these categories should be renamed to a more explicit name, with a redirect. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but as noted there are still plenty of these missing cats to restore. That requires access to either Túrelio's deletion log (which I don't have) or the redlinks on the list of moves here: [8].
I've no issue with renaming these category names to be clearer. GB practice is like this: Category:British Rail Class 59 59103 (although "class" shouldn't be capitalised). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good name. And the log is here. Yann (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was offline between 26th and 31st. -Túrelio (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to undelete these? [9] Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio: ? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
  • Unless anyone has anything else to add, I think we're maybe done here. Although a disruptive sockmaster somehow evaded getting an indef block. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andy Dingley: That evasion is sad.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foildking142 (talk · contribs)[edit]

This is another sock of the Jermboy account. Please delete all uploads as well, it only encourages them if the images stay. Fry1989 eh? 00:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Already blocked by Magog the Ogre. Yann (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marliojersey (talk · contribs)[edit]

This one as well, please. Fry1989 eh? 14:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see they've been blocked, but the uploads also need to go, please. Fry1989 eh? 16:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lololand4362 (talk · contribs)[edit]

This one and their uploads as well, please. Fry1989 eh? 15:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And also the uploads of Gohkenytp90909 (talk · contribs). Fry1989 eh? 15:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Both blocked, all uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr. Tripto Rahman[edit]

Mr. Tripto Rahman (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log

Self-promoter who has uploaded the same selfies a few times and removed deletion templates from them. They aren't contributing to any Wikimedia projects, outside of a speedily deleted autobiography draft on Wikipedia, and turning their Commons userpage into a promotional biography. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I warned Rahman. All uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: The user doubled down.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. All contributions, including userpage deleted as spam. Block is not needed at moment. Taivo (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: How about now that he doubled down again?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. One week block. Next blocks will be longer. Taivo (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leonel Sohns[edit]

  — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have uploaded recently such things, I did it in 2020. Leonel Sohns 12:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Leonel Sohns: That's irrelevant. When will you finish attributing the sources of your previous uploads? For instance, what was the source of File:Ballen en Alianza Petrolera.jpg, uploaded as own work just three days ago? Was it actually Alianza Petrolera Fútbol Club?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One file deleted for attack/harrassment. --Yann (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Thanks! The user continues "making major changes to templates" without consensus, despite a warning.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iamirabar / User:Abaramir[edit]

Repeatedly uploading the same two copyvio images, plus some selfies. Both accounts have been warned to stop. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Sockpuppetry plus violation after warnings. I blocked both indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done. I blocked Paolos indefinitely as sockpuppet, but I did not revert anything. Taivo (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Gazinit multiple copyvios despite warnings[edit]

Gazinit (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log

Please see contributions history and talk page Timtrent (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet. All contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo Thank you. In order that I can raise an SPI on en WP (if relevant) may I know of whom this editor is a Sockpuppet, please. Please ping me on any reply. Timtrent (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OOpsy. I failed to check the one place it stated it! Timtrent (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Only engaged in re-uploading copyright images from news websites and Instagram accounts and claiming many of them to be own. Run n Fly (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Already warned, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Both are continuously uploading CSD#F10 images. Both were warned to not recreate files, but my warning probably won't last. A09090091 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Sock blocked indef. Older account blocked for a week. All files deleted. --Yann (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This uploader continues to upload problematic and unfree image files, even after warnings on their talk page. Megaph also vandalizes decent files by overwriting them with copyright-problematic images, like File:Brgy. Telaje, Tandag City.jpg. See also Special:Listfiles/Megaph. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files (except one) deleted. --Yann (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Yann: . Oh, by the way, File:Mt. Asog.JPG still contains the user's problem files. Those files need to be revision deleted. Thanks in advance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Yann (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I deleted the last remaining upload due to failed license review: NC license with other restrictions on source site. Taivo (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


User persistently uploading (6 times in total) copyrighted images and claiming it as own work and also licensed under CC 4.0. Paper9oll 09:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. --Yann (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann Last warning didn't work, user continue to upload copyright violation and this time claiming as licensed under CC 3.0 as seen with File:Kim Hyeon-soo.jpg, File:Kim Seon-ho in 2020.jpg, and File:Jo Han-chul.jpg, all of which are ripped from news articles on Naver News. Paper9oll 06:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. --Yann (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you Paper9oll 09:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


André365173 (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) keep uploading pictures they take from internet as their "own work" even after a final warning. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 17:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Uploading bunch of copyrighted images (including logos) since July 2021 and falsely claiming it as licensed under CC 4.0.

I have tagged all of them for CSD. Paper9oll 09:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I warned the user and deleted speedily some copyvios due to failed license review. Taivo (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you. Paper9oll 15:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


the user Lopezsuarez blocked on enwiki, now is doing editions likes a revenge against users who report him in such wiki, he uploads derivative works without improvements of photos of the other users --Ezarateesteban 21:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm this situation, at least with images that I uploaded. From this original, he created this derivative, but it does not improve the image at all, it actually deteriorates it since it cuts out the building and architectural elements present in the original image. --Rodelar (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ezarate and Rodelar: When you report an account here, you should inform them on their talk page. This time I did it for you. Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised by that statement. It is totally false, I have edited that image so that it is in a 16:9 size, which is the most common in images of towns. I did not know who the author was, and I have done this with all the municipalities in other provinces, such as Almería and Jaén (200 municipalities/images). Originally, automatic images appeared, of different sizes, and there were other better photos, and I have selected the ones that looked better.
I don't understand what the problem is, but I can get the original photo of La Mata back if it bothers anyone.
By the way, I am not blocked on enwiki. Lopezsuarez (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lopezsuarez is not blocked at enwiki but on eswiki for half a year – this will expire on 17 March 2022. He apparently believes that the 16:9 format is to be preferred even if this is a bad crop as in the example of File:Ayuntamiento de La Mata, en Toledo (España).jpg which has now been inserted in numerous Wikipedia articles ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14] etc. etc.). At en:wp this is in contradiction to MOS:IMAGEQUALITY and this is unlikely to be welcomed on other projects. It is great to look for photos for articles that do not have them yet. But the issue with these mutilating crops should stop. Another mutilating crop is File:Polopos (Granada, España).jpg which is derived from File:Polopos.jpg. Or File:Catedral de la Natividad de Ntra. Señora y Fuente de Santa María, en Baeza (Jaén, España).jpg which was derived from File:Baeza Catedral de la Natividad de Nuestra Señora north side.jpg by cutting the cross at the top of the church and the base of the monument in the front. Another problem is File:Torre del Reloj, en Arquillos (Jaén, España).jpg which has been derived from this photo which was published in 2009 under a GFDL license. This must not be migrated to a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license, see Commons:License Migration Task Force/Migration. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree most of these croppings do not provide value in Commons neither in the Wikipedias they are used. This stuff (reuploading uploads [in use] by other users with no improvements at all or minimal changes (whether by cropping or photoshopping), and then replacing the original files in Wikidata and Wikipedia) has been a trend in populated-places-of-Spain-related articles in es.wikipedia for a while, being involved not only Lopezsuarez but a few more accounts too. In the other hand, the claim "16:9 size (...) is the most common in images of towns" certainly needs a source. Strakhov (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being blocked on a Wikipedia for totally unfair reasons, which I asked to review and haven't been reviewed since I asked in September (they haven't given any answers because they know I'm right) has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. The user Ezarate accuses me of something meaningless:

  1. I have not cropped any images to annoy anyone.
  2. I haven't cropped any images uploaded by "users who report him in such wiki".
  3. I don't even know which users upload the original photos. Some are even my own ([15], [16] or [17]).
  4. Photos like this, this or this (for example) are a great improvement. There were items on Wikidata that had images as inappropriate as this one (in Pulianas).

In any case, evaluations apart from my work, I am not "chasing" any user. Lopezsuarez (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


User: CodySturgis (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log

Looks like someone uploading attack images trying to make them searchable under the subject's name. (File:Cody sturgis 24.jpg has the text "This isn’t going away from google images for a while I’d say, Cody’s big debut he’s google image searchable [...] and he doesn’t look too happy about it. Props to Wikipedia commons, having taken a few months to do so.") --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warned and deleted his files. If he does it again will merit a block Gbawden (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The likelihood that these photos were intended to humiliate a named person doesn't merit a block? --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


User: VadelBlackwell (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log

Uploading a copyvio image ("Source: Google image") after having been warned and temporarily blocked for the same problem last year. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


User: MOBINEHASANI (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log

Uploading copyvio images months after a final warning last April. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I issued another warning as the last upload goes back to July 2021, hence I can't block him. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2: So that I know when to re-warn a user rather than report them here, in future: what's the reason you can't block him? --Lord Belbury (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks are preventive, not punitive. For a user who has not edited since since 25 July 2021, a sudden block nearly six months later would not be reasonably expected to be preventing anything. Эlcobbola talk 21:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) He seems to have left Wikipedia for good. He was active in summer making some biography at fawiki and uploading related pictures here at Commons. He seems gone and blocking him does not protect the project more than just leaving him warned again. If I want to block him the only sensible block period is indefinite because we don't know when/if he comes back, and I find blocking a newbie user indefinitely a little too harsh, especially since the granted unblock requests ratio is quite low here. All in all, I think cleaning up the mess he left is enough and all his uploads have been deleted. Of course, if recent copyvios by him get reported on time, he most probably will end up being blocked some day. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that feels a little reckless to me, to wait for a user's next copyvios and hope somebody spots them, and spots them quickly, but if it's how things work here, I'll keep it in mind in future. --Lord Belbury (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


GabrielDorneles (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) were blocked back in December for keep uploading copyvios after a final warning. They returned from their block, and they keep uploading images that are copyvios or whose copyright status is questionable. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 12:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks. All uploads have a wrong license. More than 1,000 files need to be checked. --Yann (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]