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
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	117, 116, 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	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

^{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: ~21
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~1
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-10: ~59

Other:

• Duplicates: ~200
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~4
• Other speedy deletions: ~63
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~3
• Undeletion requests: ~12

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~31
• Interface admin: ~16
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~16
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• 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

• 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 fou tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{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.

Sockpuppetry?

• Zhangzong (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Zongzhang19463587 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Given the very similar username and the uploading of the same files by the two accounts I suspect sockpuppetry. Master have been indefed, hence the need to create a sock. Jonteemil (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

對，兩個帳號都是我!可以讓我把這些照片放在維基共享資源嗎?如果不能放上這些很重要的照片，我真的會很想死耶.......

維基有沒有給個人專用的相簿? Zongzhang19463587 (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

對!兩個帳號都是我 Zongzhang19463587 (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppetry by user themself above. Nuke all files and indef sock. Jonteemil (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Both blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: Zongzhang19463587 has not been blocked yet. Or do you think the block is unnecessary? Thanks. SCP-2000 11:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes,  Done Yann (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Andrew Pater

Andrew Pater (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user uploads photos and logos of likely copyrighted source but declaring as his own. Furthermore, some of his uploads are reuploads of deleted items according to the names used. Pierre cb (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. No activity after you warned him. Uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Misaka Eikoto

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

Sockpuppet of 反共抗獨光復民國 (talk · contribs). Account was registered on the same day he got permabanned, phrasing is identical and so is the nature of his requests. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. I also removed [1]. Yann (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Fiorinaio05

• Fiorinaio05 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues to upload the same deleted file after having one prior block for it. Jonteemil (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Taivo A week again? Shouldn't a second block be longer? Jonteemil (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, that's second block. I reblocked the user for a month. Taivo (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Yaboisohan

Regarding User:Yaboisohan, I have reviewed of their several uploaded photos, and all are copyright violations. I suspect the ones I haven't checked are copyright violations too. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Handled I zapped all of their uploads except for one and left them a final warning. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Metalworker14, unrelenting copyright violation and possible undisclosed paid editing

Despite the numerous warnings the user has received for copyright issues and a specific warning for uploading Symphony of Heaven's images from Facebook, they've again uploaded an image off the band's website as their own. here. This was actually sized down version of the file that was on the band's official website of Symphony of Heaven. All these numerous warnings in the past didn't deter them from doing this. Their prolific article creation pattern at en.wiki seems to suggest they maybe editing on behalf of a promotion company which would explain why they're getting so many copyright take downs. Graywalls (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user (he was not warned previously). The upload in question is deleted as copyvio. Taivo (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Taivo: , I said they've been previously warned, because of these talk messages found on their page. I thought these, particularly the reminder about the exact copy from Facebook counted as a warning.

• Special:Diff/287529111 - Was advised to get OTRS verification. Was ignored.
• Special:Diff/346100528 - Was told about about uploading something as their own is a possible copyright issue.
• Special:Diff/358485206 - another ignored request to do OTRS verification.

Graywalls (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

User:L._Beck

No admin action necessary. Yann (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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

---

The user readds speedy deletion tags to regular category discussions [2] after the speedy deletion was converted to a category discussion. I suggest they be restricted from editing category namespace.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Please let the responsible admin of the relevant category decide. As far as I am informed, it is not desirable to create an empty category today for all possible topics that might even contain a file in the future. This is bad work. Then you could create the corresponding categories up to 2050. Great, nothing gained. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, the user seems to force changes rather than seeking consensus, deliberately undoing redirects when they are aware that the question isn't agreed upon: [3]

It seeems there was a similar issue already in the past: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections/Archive_39#h-L._Beck-20240725051600 (edit warring with User:ŠJů]),
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Given the personal attacks [4][5][6], I suggest a block.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel once again confirmed that you have a lousy character. Again, you start a discussion and before we can clarify an issue there, you pass people on to this place. Yes, I find your behavior impossible (and not for the first time). This should not be taken as an insult, but as a well-founded and honest opinion! Lukas Beck (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, you were reported here because you replaced the discussion with speedy tags rather than participating there.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Not repleased!!! Lukas Beck (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You are just doing it wrongly.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, and you couldn't clarify that on my discussion page? You had to involve tons of other people to do that? That's exactly what I mean when I say you have a bad character. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

And to be honest, I think I'm here because we've already clashed several times, as you've often noticed yourself constantly revising changes without discussion and instead of discussing things, you report people directly here. And the fact that you are vandalizing and trolling is not a form of insult. There are many other things that would come to mind that I won't say, as they quite rightly have no place in this project. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

All edits being examined are yours. I guess it's easy to just start with personal attacks if you don't have any arguments.

Now pretending you ignore that the speedy deletion tag shouldn't be readded after it was convert to a category discussion suggests that you might not even read the deletion tags you added all over. I guess it's a competency issue I'm not sure how to address.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No matter how many times you want to repeat it; Terms like vandalism or trolling are not personal attacks.

Competency problems, to use this word, even if they existed, would probably not be the right place to discuss them here. I highly recommend getting involved in discussions on the user pages and not writing everything you can't handle on this page. This has something to do with social skills. ;-) Lukas Beck (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, you are obviously free to think of yourself in these terms.

I asked you to open a discussion if you want to implement a change, but apparently, you are not interested in that.

Even when it's done for your (by me), you add speedy deletion tags to category pages and then force the conclusion of the discussion by implementing the controversial change you want to propose while it's open.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood something fundamental. I'm not going to start a discussion about it before every change I make. If you disagree with my changes for whatever reason, it is your responsibility to open a discussion. Or you can simply revert my changes without much explanation and ask me to justify my changes. The latter is not necessarily the best way. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Which explains why you got into a revert war with SJU before.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Which brings me back to your lousy character. If I may clarify this to you, this process has long since been completed with the result that no further measures against me are necessary. So what do you want from me now? Maybe you should concentrate on the current situation and heed what I just wrote to you. Otherwise, this might not be our last argument. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to assume that it's normal that you keep getting reverted.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

don't get that argument, sorry Lukas Beck (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Enhancing999: We don't keep empty categories. They can be recreated as soon as they are not empty any more. Yann (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

We are free to create them, especially when part of series.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

For what reason? How sure can you be that some of the categories won't remain empty forever? And permanently empty categories are not needed here. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to participate in the discussion.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

the discussion is already closed ;-). Lukas Beck (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

1. There are (rare) times when an empty category should be kept:
   1. One of very few empty categories in a mostly populated series, especially if the series has a prev/next navigation
   2. Certain maintenance categories that we hope to keep empty, but where we want them to be there if the issue in question arises again
   3. A category we expect to have content very soon (e.g. a category for the third day of a conference that is now on its first day).
2. If someone turns a speedy deletion into a normal discussion, it is almost always correct to let it run its course. Simply reverting them without discussion is only the right thing to do if you are dealing with a vandal, and in this respect no user who is genuinely active in the project should be considered a vandal: we're talking about things like a brand new user or an IP coming along and turning a speedy into a DR with no rationale, or with a transparently absurd rationale.
3. "you have a bad character" (from Lukas Beck) at least borders on calling for a week's block, and their general tone on this thread does nothing to make me think otherwise.

Jmabel ! talk 06:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Someone like Enhancing999, who is vERY often seeking conflicts on this page and elsewhere, should be able to take such comments on their behaviour easy. --A.Savin 06:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a personal attack from user not even involved in the above discussion, but present when Lukas B. runs into conflicts.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Now it is not the first time that this user always interprets criticism against himself, no matter how factual it may be, as a personal attack, then reports his colleagues here instead of first discussing it on the corresponding discussion page and then presents himself as the big victim . And his tone is no less unfriendly towards his colleagues. I still think it's highly problematic. That's why I stick with the factual and reasoned statement that he has a bad character. Our policy of not insulting our colleagues should not prevent us from objectively criticizing our colleagues. And this should certainly not be seen as an excuse to block users. Otherwise it will definitely be the end of a healthy debate culture here on Commons. Lukas Beck (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't reset the discussion. I haven't removed the reference to the discussion either. Lukas Beck (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• An additional problem that was found on Commons:Undeletion_requests is that that L. Beck systematically ignores COM:SPEEDY and requests speedy deletion of categories don't meet its criteria (Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Category). Accordingly, they should be required to go through CfD for all future deletion requests. You would think given their activities in categorization, they would frequently do that, but apparently they systematically don't do that (no request in the last two years).
   ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, there haven't been any problems so far and there shouldn't be any now either, after all it's regulated that unnecessary categories can be deleted quickly. Otherwise feel free to correct me. ;-) Lukas Beck (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

---

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

Raghav 1048

Raghav 1048 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user has uploaded enough copyright violations that it probably warrants a warning. I dream of horses (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@I dream of horses There is nothing stopping you warning them yourself Gbawden (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gbawden Wait, really? I'm an experienced Wikipedian but I'm new around here. It seems that admins do the warnings here. I dream of horses (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

No, anyone can warn. Admins block when its warranted. Take a look at COM:BP - anyone can add a warning template (or use a tool to do it) and if the behaviour persists you bring it here and admins take the appropriate action Gbawden (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gbawden Where are the warnings? I dream of horses (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Block warning templates. Or just writing something more specific and less formal: a warning doesn't have to be templated. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Mortezarahimi3rd

Uploaded many files and claimed them to be own work, asked the user to change that to instead link to the source (for OWID files) but the user didn't do so and didn't respond. Don't know what should be done now: the files are useful but other users shouldn't be expected to fix this issue for Mortezarahimi3rd. This same problem may also exist for non-OWID uploads by Mortezarahimi3rd. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done I blocked this user for uploading more files. Other edits are allowed. However Mortezarahimi3rd has not edited for several months. Yann (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Enhancing999

Hi, I think we have a problem with Enhancing999 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

1. First edit-warring with Lukas Beck over deletion of Category:1922 in rail transport in Switzerland (see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/10/Category:1877 in rail transport in Switzerland, now recreated, and User talk:L. Beck#Vandalism accusations for changes you seek to implement).
2. Then reporting Lukas Beck on ANU: [7].
3. Then this discussion, of which Jim said that it was completely out of place.
4. Also bothering me on my talk page here.
5. Finally this discussion on the VP.
6. And last, but not least, removing other people comments when they don't like it.

Could someone please explain to Enhancing999 that we don't keep empty categories, eventually with stronger terms? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Enhancing999: Your behavior in this matter is utterly unacceptable. Cut it out immediately. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Enhancing999 continues here. Yann (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Support A block is certainly overdue. This user LOVES to report other users on COM:ANU often for void reasons, and without much attempt to discuss first. Already the fact that they didn't comment anything on this complaint is telling a lot. --A.Savin 19:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• {{s}} all the reasons above and my own experience with them. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 21:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Decided to withhold my opinion instead despite my encounter with this user, I've no interest in supporting a block at this time. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 14:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Support Uncomfortable questions can be a good thing up to a certain amount, but I've also seen Enhancing999 beyond the limit, causing disruption. --Krd 05:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose some sanction might be in order, but a block seems excessive to me. Regardless, it would be a good idea if Enhancing999 were to acknowledge that the consensus is clearly against them on where to draw the line for keeping empty categories, and that they should just plain let others (who are overwhelmingly in consensus with each other) make those decisions. - Jmabel ! talk 10:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm obviously open to discuss this (even opened the relevant CfD). I think Yann is well aware that their action isn't supported by current Commons policy as stated, at least by 17 Oct, 19:54, so it seems to me that they are using their adminship (by prematurely closing discussions, deleting categories, refusing to participate in the discussions) to force an editorial issue. Coming from an administrator that mainly works on copyright issues, this seems even more problematic.
   ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  There is only a small difference. It's not like @Yann clearly violated any guidelines. In fact, various administrators have pointed out to you in various places which rule you are referring to here. And there seems to be a general consensus about this decision. Why can't you submit to that? Lukas Beck (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Support per above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• About point 1:
  • I doubt I edited Category:1922 in rail transport in Switzerland after a speedy tag was placed. To me, this appears to be false reporting by Yann.
  • About 1877: I followed the steps outlined on the speedy deletion tag to convert this to a regular discussion. Lukas then went on to readd the speedy tag. Admin review at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:L._Beck concluded that Lukas action wasn't appropriate. Despite the ongoing discussion, Yann proceeded with deleting the category. Admin review concluded that Yann's action was premature. In the meantime, Lukas recreated the category.
  • About the personal attacks: Admin review at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:L._Beck concluded that Lukas personal attack should result in a block.
• About 2: Admin review at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:L._Beck concluded that Lukas action wasn't appropriate and their personal attacks should stop. Somehow Yann ignored that review and closed the report despite being personally involved in the matter.
• About 3: The undeletion request followed the relevant steps. It's unclear based on what that conclusion was reached. I'm working on having that clarified. Admin view in that discussion was that they wouldn't have deleted the category.
• About 4: I rephrased the question twice, but Yann didn't answer despite responding. It appears they can't explain which Wikimedia Commons policy their action was based on. If they feel bothered by being questioned about their admin actions, the remedy would be to not take any admin actions.
• About 5: It's strange that Yann doesn't want a discussion on user expectations on how admin actions are explained to take place and makes it into a discussion about himself. As an admin, they aren't even particularly concerned by the question for user expectations. It would be good to have more views there.
• About 6: As Yann restored the comment, I added a note about its off-topic nature. The comment is indeed not related to the general question asked in the discussion. I should probably have asked an admin to remove it instead. I don't think Yann's comment in that discussion is on topic either; somehow they keep repeating an answer to a question they aren't being asked. In any case, neither explained how their comments would relate to the general topic.

As much as I value Yann's knowledge on copyright, I don't think their approach to categorization discussions is sound. Admin review already deemed their closure as premature. I had the same impression with Yann's actions about Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Cross & Feather Architecture where they didn't even bother to comment and note their action. It lead even more confusion among two fairly new editors.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point it is very important for me to mention again that I have never insulted or discriminated against this user. I don't have a good opinion of him, which shouldn't be surprising given his history, and I can and will express my opinion here. And the statement that the user has a bad character is a factual observation that is confirmed time and time again. And as @A.Savin said, you should be able to take criticism. A block here would send a very bad signal when you look at what it means for future communication here on Commons. Should you no longer be allowed to criticize colleagues who are obviously behaving incorrectly, no matter how objectively? If so, I see no future for this project, which thrives on mutual exchange. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

About 3: You're not being completely honest here. Not every administrator agreed with you and no administrator saw the need to restore the useless categories. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Since Enhancing999 is referring to me, 3 is missing context: I said that I usually don't delete empty categories in a sequence, but I also did not see a need to restore it. I pointed out that the category could be recreated once it was no longer empty (or I'd be willing to undelete upon request when it is not empty). Abzeronow (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

In summary, we should not reopen the discussion about the deleted categories here. We conducted this in a variety of places and always came to the same result. This is about how the user deals with this situation and towards his colleagues. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

From your response I do not see the you are aware of the problem. Do you understand what behaviour is problematic and do try to avoid this in the future? GPSLeo (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Clearly, point 6 was an error. I should have noted that I consider the comment off-topic and asked an admin to remove it.

As a non-admin, I can't really check if the report (point 1.) about the 1922 category is accurate or not, so maybe you can check and confirms to me (and all other non admins), if Yann's allegation is accurate or false.

If the - what I consider - continued personal attacks by Lukas Beck (also in this thread) are acceptable, I can take a note of that so that we all may feel free to do so as well. Personally, I don't think their comment even in this thread are acceptable and an admin should consider opening another thread on them.

If it's generally considered inacceptable to request undeletion of elements deleted by Yann, I'd be happy to comply with this.

If the conversion of a speedy deletion to regular discussion was correctly handled in this case, please state so, so that we can update our procedures.

BTW, can you provide a link to the policies that may back up Yann's deletion decisions.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but the topic has been discussed and we have referred you to the relevant guidelines several times. Just re-read the old discussions or look at the speedy deletion guidelines. This clearly states that meaningless categories can be deleted quickly and which category is to be rated as meaningless and which is not is in the hands of the decisive administrators. And to the previous point, all I can say is that your unacceptable actions are causing counter-reactions, which are logically directed against you. Nobody should insult anyone here, but you should be able to tolerate headwinds up to a certain point. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The question wasn't addressed to you, L., but I note that in this thread twice L. comments on that point without being able to provide a working wikilink.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Block request 193.210.166.91

Repeated disruptive and threatening behaviour. Here he writes "you may find your Wikipedia head on your bedroom floor". Nitraus (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Dromad09

Dromad09 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Porn user, not here to be productive Dronebogus (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Cracow.Writer

Can someone with a working knowledge of Polish please review this user's uploads? The translated descriptions seem rather irregular (repeated references to "debunking a proof of schizophrenia", a 2014 "Polish terrorist attack", etc) and often seem unrelated to the documents, but I'd appreciate a second opinion before I bring these to deletion. Omphalographer (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Verdy p

• User: Verdy p (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: For years, I have been railing against incomplete deletion requests, which are caused by malformed use of {{Delete}} templates and lack of follow-through, and which are populating subcats of Category:Incomplete deletion requests. This problem spurred the creation of that category 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC), over 17 years ago, and my tracking of it 18:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC), over three years ago. As a precedent, ColorfulSmoke was blocked 17:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC) by Mdaniels5757 with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page", pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 29#ColorfulSmoke, and Alex Neman was blocked 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC) by Yann with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page" pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 34#Alex Neman. Verdy p made this edit on or before 23 November 2022 (UTC): including a {{Delete}} tag as the reason. They also made this second edit 11:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC): including a {{Delete}} tag on the subpage. I reminded them of their mistakes and warned them in this edit 13:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC) and edits leading to it. They neglected to respond to my warning per User talk:Verdy p/archive19#Reminder, and made such an edit again in this edit 09:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC): again including a {{Delete}} tag on the subpage. Please block them longer, as they already have four blocks on record.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC):

I posted the request, but I had not the time to complete it because while editing it, you added that and caused conflict. Given you did that work in "emergency" I had nothing to do more after your instantaneus action. You are just too hurry.' I have not ignored any instruction (and remember that instructions change over time, so I need to check them as well before continuing). Also your claim that I did not respond is wrong (including in your old request done years ago). I have not ignored them but people are not expected to reply instantly to everything, especially if they are offline at that time. Everyone should be allowed several days to post a response to any message, I am not a bot, and not a slave!

You links above show that you've done that extremely rarely: Less that once a year! I have done many other delete requests, and completed them properly, before you detected anything. So why are you complaining here? All was done correctly in appropriate time. If ever something is missing this is an omission that may have been caused by other more urgent edits needed elsewhere, or because there was a temporary network/database problem delaying any further action. You have never complained directly to me about that. Only here. Please keep your calm and be fair.

My request was valid even if it was still not complete and took action immediately on it (and made because the request was done to undo abusive edits (spreading fake facts in many places) that were done by an IP user from Asia (on multiple wikis) polluting Japanese topics everywhere (that Asian IP user uses various IP addresses using his mobile; I am checking now all what he did recepently here in Commons; but there are other wikis as well were he pushed repeated polution with fake edit comments like "love"). verdy_p (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Verdy p: I corrected your edit in this edit 10:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC), a full 71 minutes after your edit. You did not take into account the many edits I have made to user talk pages regarding incomplete deletion requests (look for the words "warning" and "reminder" in the Edit Summaries).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

During those 71 minutes you did not ping me at all, did not contact me. I had a neighbour visiting me. I was gone to bring him to funerals of his father (he has no vehicle to attend there in time), so I was absent for a couple of hours to bring him and make some shopping, before eating and returning home. During these 71 minutes I did not edit anything and did not even read any page on this wiki, to get any notification (the internal logs can easily prove that, I can also prove it by my purchase ticket in a mall and at my bank to get money, and another one to buy a lunch and take a coffea, but this is my normal personal life).

Really, read above: I'm not a slave working 24/7, I'm not a bot like what you operate here for such "railed" maintenance you want to do; and if you want to do things faster, you can do that, but there was absolutely no emergency and during that time you did not even take the time to contact me. I have seen nothing when you were back, except to see that you had completed the work that required no further action from me. Also please don't mix me with other unrelated facts concerning randomly chosen other users: your justifications above are completely unfair and causes just pollution: such arguments are built for infering malicious bias).

Even if I made an error or ommission, or if this was caused by some technical reason, the delay was caused by external factors, consider I'm a human, not a device or service supposed to available nearly 100% of time. That's now the way to cooperate (even respected companies and fovernments give reasonable delays and do not warranty any action during that time or compensation after that). I have not abused the system (and my actions on this wiki are very clear, I've not ignored anything and did not act to introduce any massive "pollution", these edits were correctly followed manually one by one and in correct time; time is also always needed to allow further checks). Unlike bots (including yours), We (humans) all work incrementally by small successive steps. verdy_p (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Verdy p: You forgot to ping me. During those 71 minutes, I was busy sleeping and getting ready for my workday. I corrected your edit as soon as I noticed your edit, pinging you in the process. Then, I researched our previous interactions and determined that further contact with you about this exact issue of creating DR subpages including [[t2|delete}} would be fruitless, as I had already warned you about it nearly two years ago. Then, after more preparations for my workday (including travel and further research), I posted the above in a new section. You responded above after four minutes, before I had a chance to post {{subst:Discussion-notice}}. Note, I have created well over a thousand pages in Commons namespace, most being well-formed DR subpages.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

And do so what? We were both busy duringh these 71 minutes. So what's the point for contactuig this board as the only form of "interaction"? Your own history and my own demonstrates exactly the opposite of all what you argued and invented just above, mixing me with also other people. And taking pseudo arguments that are not minutes apart, but several years apart (and then inventing your conclusion, as if I had never replied and noticed your concern if I was ever really involved) is just complete non-sense. You invent your own rules for your preferences. And the only form of "cooperation" taken here, is just a way to harass and ennoy me, and admins or other visitors of this page; adding another set of new lies and invention in your last response, scrambling the chronologies of events, and mixing unrelated people, just makes your arguments above completely pointless. verdy_p (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)