User talk:RafikiSykes

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


Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, RafikiSykes!

-- 23:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


Please do not recreate deleted content[edit]

Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Svenska | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Nuvola apps important.svg Your image or other content, File:Enchanted Tiki Room.jpg, was recently deleted in accordance with our process and policies. You have recreated this content after it was deleted; please do not do this. If you would like to contest the deletion, please visit Commons:Undeletion requests and follow the instructions there to have the deletion reviewed. Recreating deleted content outside of process is not allowed, and doing so repeatedly may cause you to lose your editing privileges. Thank you for understanding.

Please note: This image is a derivative work of copyrighted Disney characters and, although released under a free license by the image creator, had to be deleted as only the copyright holder of these characters (disney) is able to release it under a free license. --Denniss (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 818408f45acbdf6bdf34be616229b5b6[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Discussion about subcategories[edit]

I've opened a discussion about your newly-added subcategories. Your comments would be useful. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there hope you dont mind but I have put the files you moved back in both the original and new categories temporarily until we see how the discussion goes.RafikiSykes (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

As per Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/RafikiSykes, it would appear that you have yet to receive a warning. You may now consider this your only warning; the abandoning of your MMM account whilst leaving 10,000 photos in an absolute mess, and starting a new account to give us another 10,000 files which you obviously had no intention of fixing, is not on. Particularly as you were directed not to use the Flickr upload bot tool so long as the MMM uploads were still problematic. You are now being directed to only use this account, but you will not be giving us more problematic uploads. You have a lot to fix. If you decide to ignore this warning, any future use of that tool without fixing your current uploads, will result in the sock, as well as this account, being indef blocked, and all uploads being nuked. russavia (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Blocked Indefinitely
This user has been blocked indefinitely. See block log.

বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Zazaki | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Kurdî | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Sicilianu | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Denniss (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

May I ask - did this user create another account? Because the above made it clear that he should only use this account, and he hasn't made any edits since then on any of the three accounts I know about, so I can't see a reason for an indefinite block. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Me too - I'm rather unclear about what has happened here. If a bureaucrat were to tell me to stop poking, I'll happily do so, on the assumption that this user has decided to let this account go and there is some equitable solution agreed that avoids any personal issue. On the whole, it appears that admins have decided to be pretty hard-line, perhaps justifiably as I don't see everything, but it would be nice to think things have now been resolved in a mellow fashion that befits the nature of this project, rather than just uncompromisingly booting someone off for good without much of a fig-leaf available for reform. The offences here were not much worse than for some truly ghastly disruptive and distressing behaviours we have seen from users that are still contributing today. Thanks -- (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Why should we keep this sockmaster alive here? He has not shown any interest to clean up the upload mess he created with these puppet accounts. No edit from this master account since early September 2012. En wiki sock investigation has identified User:Nirame as another (old) sock. --Denniss (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I just wondered, since the block contradicts what Russavia said. So what happens to all the "problem" uploads now? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Taking information about behaviour on en.wp against en.wp policies to impose an indef block here is more than a little dubious unless there is a global ban in place, particularly as the evidence of the old account shows a sum total of 7 images uploaded in April 2011, hardly a master criminal at work in terms of Commons expectations. I think this less than useful sock hunting is getting a bit out of hand as a reason for an indef block, could you please reconsider or produce some evidence a bit more substantial that fits with the statement/warning from Russavia? Thanks (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Does that "7 images" include any images uploaded via the Flickr upload bot? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The block will not be lifted as the user is a known socker, has damaged the project and has not shown any further interest to repair the damage. The only exception was with the Maybe account but only after Fae pointed out the vast amount of dupes he uploaded. --Denniss (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Denniss. Your statement does not entirely stack up with the facts as I see them today.
  1. It is entirely unfair to blame this user for failures in the upload tools to detect duplicates. I remain unsure of the technical reasons why this happened, however a failure in the expected functioning of the Commons system cannot be put on the shoulders of this user. All uploaders, including myself and Russavia have created many duplicates in the last twelve months because of this failure of the tools, and there is no suggestion that we should start blocking Magnus for supporting this project by creating these free tools. The duplicates were detected by me and categorized without massive disruption to the project community, indeed the vast majority of our contributors are unaware this was ever an issue and those of us interested in batch uploading have learned a valuable lesson. This does not fit the Blocking policy.
  2. The single account you have highlighted as additionally problematic uploaded seven images in 2011. This does not fit the reasoned warning, that the bureaucrat Russavia gave this user, above, which was based on future disruptive behaviour, not behaviour from a year and a half ago for which there seems to be nothing disruptive, it was just an alternative account.
  3. This user was indeed disruptive. It can also be seen that the vast majority of their uploads have not been problematic, and their "crime" has been to fail to put enough work into discriminating between problem free Flickr accounts and those that we would prefer not to trust, mainly due to doubtful copyright. However I have yet to seen deliberate disruption, and characterizing this user as unwilling to help repair the damage appears unfair to my eyes as the MMM account did attempt to help before it was blocked. It is not unreasonable for a user to walk away from positive help if they have their preferred account for that activity blocked and are then subject to an inter-project sock-hunting campaign.
  4. It has not been established that having more than one alternative accounts is a blocking offence on Commons, although a handful of admins seem to want that to be the case, there has been no proposal to change policy. This of itself is not a rationale for an indef block and issues of this user's behaviour on en.wp where en.wp policies are far stronger, longer and meat for wikilawyering should not be a rationale, or a prompt, for admin action on this project.
Denniss, please reconsider your hard-line approach by reviewing this action again. I suggest you provide the evidence for the significant bad-faith disruption and lack of mellow behaviour, occurring after Russavia's line in that sand, that we would normally require to be presented before an admin chooses to indef block a user, and please spell out what commitment or behavioural change you require of RafikiSykes to be unblocked should they ever wish to appeal. I believe that we should always provide the opportunity to demonstrate reform. Thanks -- (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your block, etc[edit]

The proper action here on your part would be to use {{Unblock}} and address the concerns that led to the indef block of this account, or, if the block itself is questioned, to challenge it. I don't see any reaction to the block from you here. What are your views on the issue/s and the block, and what are your intentions going forward? Creating new sock accounts isn't the answer. INeverCry 17:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Andy_Murray_in_2007[edit]

Flickrworker (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Me & Harry Derbidge crop.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Me & Harry Derbidge crop.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

The Photographer (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


File:Predator 02.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Predator 02.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Vera (talk) 09:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Madonna newspaper photo (253557054).jpg[edit]

File tagging File:Madonna newspaper photo (253557054).jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Madonna newspaper photo (253557054).jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Madonna newspaper photo (253557054).jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Ce fichier est la reprocduction d’une photo du Los Angeles Times - This file is a reproduction of the Los Angeles Times photography Katastrov (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)