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 legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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 four 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.

Edit warring and unaterially closing a CfD by User:Orijentolog

[edit]

Can an admin please look at the edit history of Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Towers in Iran and deal with User:Orijentolog's waring bullshit? Adamant1 (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in discussing with this person, because he opens discussions with the aim of harassing, accusing and insulting, and he unilaterally removes proper categories all around, thereby disrupting the categorization tree that has been built for years. --Orijentolog (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't participate in the CfD then. You don't own the categories and you can't just close a CfD after a day and one person commenting just because you don't agree with it. I have every right to start a CfD to discuss with other users if a category system makes sense or not. The only problem here is your petty, uncollaborative attitude and ownership issues.

Also look at the edit history of Category:Buildings in Babolsar by shape where they also reverted me and @Fralambert: multiple times. There's absolutely zero reason I should have had to report his uncollaborative edit waring nonsense twice. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fralambert obviously intended to remove Wikidata template, as he explained on the sister project, not to delete valid category which is not empty. Opening discussions with false accusations and insults (like that something is "beyond my ability to understand") is not only a violation of the project rules, but is below the level of civilized discussion. --Orijentolog (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear you didn't understand what I was telling you. I was just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that it was something you were confused about. It's not like you haven't repeatedly insulting me over and over since this whole thing started though. So spare me the cry bullying. It's still not an excuse to unilaterally close a CfD that had only been open for a day and had commenter anyway. You were clearly just looking for a excuse to shut the conversation down. So I could give a crap. It's not your call to make if other people can discuss it or not just because you created the categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understood very well, but you continued with misbehavior. And it should be noted that such an arrogant approach has cost you several blocks lately, while I haven't had a single penalty in 15 years of activity. --Orijentolog (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What misbehavior? People are allowed to open CfDs dude. It's only an issue because your turned it into one. And your whole "arrogant approach" comment is exactly I'm talking about with the cry bullying. How dare I say you weren't understanding my explanation but it's totally cool for you to call me arrogant. Right. Right. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User Adamant1 seems to have a habbit of insulting others in discussion pages and opening very problematic deletion requests. He has been blocked for that in the past and should be given permanent block. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes. @Orijentolog you can just ignore the annoyance, which will soon move on to new targets and forget about you. :p RZuo (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: Multiple administrators disagree with Orijentolog's actions here and they even got an in edit war with one of them. I know your just being an opportunist here, but you might want to think about if it's worth support that kind of behavior just because of some petty personal beef. For all the hemming and hawing from people like you about how I act I'm certainly not out there anywhere getting an edit wars with administrators. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the close. Orijentolog was too involved to close this CfD. Abzeronow (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a temporary block. This thread shouldn't be about Adamant1's conduct (despite how the comments are going), but it's evident that Orijentolog refuses to take responsibility at hand and I can't see this being resolved through any other means other than a short block. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree with SHB2000's proposal. I also would support a warning to RZuo for civility, as they should know better at this point. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:84.59.8.126, User:88.152.184.89, possibly User:Kalinators

[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kalinator Geneva.jpg and User talk:Kalinators. It's unclear whether this foul-mouthed IP user is in fact User:Kalinators while not logged in, but this kind of abuse should not be tolerated. I would suggest a block plus a warning, but do whatever you folks want to do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I blocked the 2 IPs for a week, and deleted the file. I also warned Kalinators. Yann (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image is back at File:Stefanov120524.jpg. See also comments at [1] and [2]. C F A 💬 00:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA, deleted the file and issued a final warning. Regards, Aafi (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done blocked Kalinators, for obviously NOTHERE. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... And they're back again as Greatpig923. File is back as File:Sportspeople1.png. C F A 💬 02:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts now globally locked. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp

[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO we shouldn't have just an open section about a user -- need some diffs to substantiate "long history". — Rhododendrites talk |  13:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this ANU complaint should be not about long history of inappropriate behaviour (though there definitely is such), but about this terrible and unsubstantial accusation in particular. Because, if this is left unsanctioned, this of course would be a clear message to him and others that this kind of comments are tolerated in general. Please remember, that blocks are not punitive but preventative. --A.Savin 19:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 55#User:Charlesjsharp, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 80#Charlesjsharp, and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 62#Charlesjsharp.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of those is good evidence, really. Maybe I'm used to the enwp way of doing ANI, but usually new sections without a bunch of diffs about a long-time user just get speedily closed. Not saying there's no merit here -- just needs more effort to substantiate. — Rhododendrites talk |  01:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: We really need some recent evidence, i.e. not stuff from five-nine years ago. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 20:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charlesjsharp accused publicly A.Savin of having an illegal conduct and this can be considered as defamation (criminal offence). Charlesjsharp seems to have adopted an illegal conduct that requires exemplary sanction. Charlesjsharp also has a long history of attacking people. - Examples : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ann-Sophie_Qvarnstr%C3%B6m#Discussion%20on%20deleting%20this%20article commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:House_sparrow_feeding_behaviour.jpg - Charlesjsharp had immunity all these years because he posted pictures of animals but it is time that he learns that unacceptable behavior can't stay unpunished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:ad30:4940:c927:876e:e855:ea82 (talk • contribs)
  • Accused of attacking El Golli Mohamed but he complimented the El Golli Mohamed and suggested an improvement - Excellent quality, but if you cropped, I think the crop is too tight top and bottom
  • Their criticism of getting too close to a nest is valid IMO
Perhaps charlesjsharp does come across as short and as someone who doesn't suffer fools. And some of the diffs go back years. I think an admonishment to be less grumpy and not to bite users would be appropriate Gbawden (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think, if you claim the "nesting bird" comment to be valid, then you are doing the same libel as Charlesjsharp and are subject to a block as well. It was already explained several times why the accusation is invalid, no need to repeat. --A.Savin 10:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Methinks you are a bit agressive threating to block a fellow admin for having an opinion Gbawden (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every opinion is compatible with Commons guidelines and also with the UCoC... so for instance, an insult is also an opinion... that is, if I insult you that means I have a certain (not high) opinion on you which I tell in public, but nonetheless I would have to expect a block for saying that opinion, because according to our rules it's harassment or personal attack which is prohibited and usually sanctioned with a block... Perhaps you aren't aware, but hey, there are further admins who are not aware of UCoC, of guidelines, of common etiquette etc... --A.Savin 11:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be closed as producing more heat than light. There are a variety of valid complaints that can be levied at Charles -- including some I'd probably agree with -- but this is just an effortless free-for-all of past grievances. If any of the parties here want to agree to an interaction ban, fine, but otherwise I'd invite anyone to come back after taking the time to put together a halfway decent case backed by a whole bunch of unimpeachable diffs. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that mean you agree I did criminal offence, or does that mean Charlesjsharp is allowed to accuse publicly of criminal offences because he is kind of a judge or something, or otherwise special and above all guidelines? --A.Savin 17:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've both made legal accusations/insinuations about the other, no? "Libel" and "slander", with references to WMF Legal? I'm not at all saying that what Charles said was ok. Quite the opposite. Even if I agreed with him on the substance of the claim about the bird, which I don't, his approach was poor and opening this ANU thread was not good judgment. I'd be bothered if I were you, too. That said, I think GPSLeo more or less said what needed to be said in the other thread. That's more or less what I'm saying here -- that we don't need yet another thread unless someone's going to do the hard work of producing more evidence. Until someone does that, IMO it should be closed. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect and stubborn addition of the NoFoP templates to categories and files

[edit]

Laurel Lodged seems to be acting retaliatory after files related to a monument they voted to keep were deleted due to NoFoP law in Azerbaijan. They have started spamming every category and file they find related to Azerbaijan with the "NoFoP-category" tag. This includes very broad categories like Category:Reliefs in Baku (link), Category:Busts in Baku (link), Category:Monuments and memorials in Şəki (city) (link), among many others (search "NoFOP" on their contributions page).

Another user reverted some of these incorrect additions, and it was explained to Laurel on their user page, with my additional comments addressing other incorrect additions that hadn't yet been discussed. Unfortunately, this yielded no results.

Just a day after my comment, Laurel re-added the "NoFoP- category" template to Category:Statues of animals in Qəbələ, which I had removed because the category was too broad. They argued that the category was specific enough to justify the tag. I brought the issue up again on their talk page. They responded by claiming to have a "good understanding of the meaning of the template" and suggested I start a discussion on the category talk page if I wanted to remove it.

To ensure I wasn't misunderstanding the template, I inquired about the appropriate use of the "NoFoP-category" for such cases at the Village Pump and informed Laurel about the discussion. Everyone who commented agreed with my interpretation that the template shouldn't be used in such categories, yet this feedback was ignored by Laurel, and the template on Category:Statues of animals in Qəbələ still remains.

To make matters worse, Laurel has now discovered a new template to misuse. They are adding the "NoFoP-Azerbaijan" template to images of ordinary roads, metro trains, pools, and more, claiming these images are copyrighted. I reverted their additions in two instances, to which they responded on my talk page. Although they conceded on one file, they continue to add the template to similar files and even make snarky comments in response to my explanations.

After days of cleaning up their mistakes and trying to explain their errors, I am at a loss for what to do next. Hence, I'm seeking assistance here. — Golden talk 13:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disingenuous complaint. The complainant has a previous history for unsavoury behaviour in Azeri POV pushing that earned him a wiki ban. Disclosure: I've also had my problems with Wiki but not for the interminable Azeri/Armenian dizpute. I have applied the templates complained of in good faith. Where there have been errors, I have acknowledged them. For the rest, I have honest reason to believe that the the tagging is legitimate. Where there is doubt, the matter is still under debate and far from reaching a conclusion, let alone one contrary to my interpretation of the application of the templates. This nomination is just wiki-lawyering. I urge you reject this SLAPP. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: Do you at least agree with the general idea that it's probably not good practice to add the template to general categories since there might be works in them that are PD? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that general idea.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I agree with that general idea. Since the discussion started on the Village Pump, I have stopped using the category template altogether except for named pieces of art. For example, I tagged Category:Bust of Uzeyir Hajibeyov in Shusha. I don't think that there can be any doubt about the correctness of that tag. Having said that, I still maintain my position that my interpretation of the operation of the category tag is correct. There is some support for this interpretation in the Pump discussion. I will of course be bound by the consensus view of the Community when it emerges in due course. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something I've had to learn the hard over the years is that your only right in any given situation as far as other people agree with your position. If no one agrees with you, then your wrong. Extreme relativism maybe, but that's just the kicks. Anyway, I wouldn't put to much weight into the one person who agrees with on the Village Pump. It's always better to people in an ANU complaint then to side one other user in a different discussion, even if they are semi-related. But I accept you that you agree with the general idea here. Personally, I don't think this is worth the electricity and hard drive space, but it's still good you agree that the template shouldn't be used for categories about general subjects. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of yesterday, Laurel continues to add the NoFoP tag to files like this, claiming that simply having a pavement in the picture is enough to make it copyrighted. It's clear this user has little understanding of how copyright works and is unwilling to listen to those more knowledgeable than them. — Golden talk 19:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason to think the poster in the background of that image or even the image itself wouldn't be copyrighted? According to the Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Azerbaijan government works are PD, but then the source of that image says "© 2010-2024 Official web-site of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan. All rights reserved." So I don't think it's that clear. Things in the background of an image can be copyrighted regardless of if the actual image is anyway though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel's rationale for the tag wasn't the poster though; it was the pavement. To my knowledge, ordinary public roads, pavements, and similar features without any artistic value aren't subject to copyright. Additionally, NoFoP doesn't apply if copyrighted structures aren't the main focus of the image or don't occupy majority of the frame, so the presence of some buildings in the background shouldn't render the entire image copyrighted either.
Regardless, the issue is that Laurel continues to mass-apply these tags to files that either clearly don't fall under NoFoP or have an unclear status that should be discussed first. They haven't been willing to constructively engage in such discussions since August, leaving people like me, who work on files related to Azerbaijan, to sift through each addition to determine which of Laurel's tags are legitimate and which are not. — Golden talk 07:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the claim "They haven't been willing to constructively engage in such discussions since August", this is demonstrably untrue. The complainant himself has provided evidence of engagement. My not agreeing with him in those engagements is not the same as not engaging at all. My belief that I am acting correctly in applying tags is not the same thing as being unwilling to constructively engage. Furthermore, I have also acknowledged my errors and have conceded on pics where the complainant has demonstrated that his position is the correct one. See [here] where I engage in September on "It doesn't have to be a work of art". See [here] where I engage in September on "Statues of animals in Qəbələ". See [here] where I engage with Interfase. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

109.178.170.151

[edit]

I recently nominated some personal artwork for deletion that was uploaded by a user, User:Donald1972 who's now globally locked for using multiple accounts. An IP editor, 109.178.170.151, then came along and tried to argue the images should be kept. Their only edits seem to revolve around the files uploaded by Donald1972. So it's pretty likely that it's just them socking again. So can an administrator look into it and block the IP address if their connected? Adamant1 (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days. Yann (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bedivere

[edit]

I do not think that @Bedivere: should have access to admin tools. They are involved in a harassment campaign against me. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) where they nominated 423 of my uploads as revenge for reversing a single edit they had made. I am pinging @Andy Dingley: who wrote: "(targeted at any editor here) is the sort of action that raises very real concerns over the fitness of an admin". Now Bedivere has used their admin rights to delete more files after promising to disengage after my first complaints. Here is the new batch deleted out of process: File:Emile Kellogg Boisot (1859-1941) probate in The Pasadena Post of Pasadena, California on February 9, 1941.jpg File:Marion Boisot (1897-1990) and Byington Ford (1890-1985) engagement in The San Francisco Examiner of San Francisco, California on November 7, 1920.jpg File:Marion Boisot (1897-1990) engagement photograph in The San Francisco Examiner of San Francisco, California on November 7, 1920.jpg I don't think they have the level of maturity or the temperament to have access to admin tools, if they are using the tools for revenge and harassment. Is this the place to ask to their access to admin tool to be revoked? RAN (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My actions were based on policy and were not personal or retaliatory. The files in question were reviewed and deleted according to Commons' guidelines, and I have always acted with transparency. If you believe my admin actions need review, I encourage you to follow the proper channels, but please refrain from making unfounded personal accusations and attacks. Thanks. Bedivere (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC) PS. You failed to notify me but I did read it on my watchlist.[reply]
The only thing that these files have in common is that they were uploaded by me. If you honestly felt that probate records were not "educational" you would have nominated the entire category. This all started because I reversed a single edit that you had made, and now you are using your admin tools to get revenge and harass me. You have also migrated your campaign to Wikidata to harass me there. And even left a message to recruit others to harass me. --RAN (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the logistics of that deletion request were poor (smaller nominations of closely related files would be better), you have provided no evidence either the (months-ago) DR nor these deletions were retaliatory. RAN, this is far from the first time that concerns have been raised about whether some of your Commons files and Wikidata items are in scope. I can hardly imagine why a newspaper clipping of a probate notice would be in scope. I would focus your energies on things like reducing the number of blatant copyright violations you upload, and perhaps find somewhere else to host things related to your ancestors. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funeral notices in the United States are considered ineligible for copyright since they contain publicly available information, and are devoid of commentary that would meet the threshold of originality. The only thing these files have in common is that I uploaded them. --RAN (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Dear brother of...", "Eight adoring grandchildren"... "Beloved husband..." "Devoted father...". Sure, not creative at all. Bedivere (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See: this search for the phrase "devoted father" appearing in funeral notices, it is a stock phrase used since the 1800s. These stock phrases were part of the reason that they were declared ineligible for copyright. The funeral director fills out a form with these phrases preprinted. If two people filled out the form, the contents would be identical. --RAN (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved in at least a couple of DRs having to do with files uploaded by RAN. Along with a few deletion requests related to their personal genealogical on Wikidata. Plenty of people other then Bedivere have said what they are doing is out of scope on both projects. The only issue here is unwillingness to get the point and stop using Commons and/or Wikidata as a personal webhost. There's plenty of other websites out there for storing personal information about family members. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These files might have been deleted by a DR. But they do not fall under any valid reason for CSD, and it is an abuse of the speedy deletion process to single-handedly delete them like this even if they are files we might decide to delete by DR. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I have restored the files mentioned above. Usually historical documents are in scope, and the reason provided is clearly not valid. Anyway, these are not eligible for speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What community consensus? It was first CSD'd by an uninvolved editor, CSD objected by none other than Greghendrson2006, then I nominated for deletion, and a third uninvolved editor questioned RAN's interpretation of "file in use". It's not just a matter of tallying up !vote counts. The very presence of objection to retention being raised means there's no solid consensus. Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann I am sorry but I am not reverting my closure. My decision was based on the solid proposal by @Graywalls, and my opinion in general is that historical documents are in scope but they should also have a potential use in Wikimedia projects. I'm all for genealogy as long as it is thoroughly documented in prose in a Wikipedia article, but most of the people who are the subject of RAN's and Greg's uploads are not notable and their only use corresponds to the Wikidata items they have created themselves. I am an avid genealogist myself, but I know my limits and know that Wikimedia Commons is not only not my personal webhost but that most of my ancestors and relatives are not worthy a Wikimedia Commons category or page, let alone have their photos and documents uploaded. I do understand your point of preserving historical documents, but what's the point of preserving materials that most likely will never have any use on Wikimedia projects (excepting the Wikidata items the uploaders themselves created for their non-notable relatives). If I was trying to be retaliatory or vindictive (for which reason anyway) against RAN or other people I would not be trying so actively to make them understand that their use of Wikimedia Commons is disruptive and it is not just my opinion but that of many other people. Greg and RAN both have the same behavior so I am not surprised they support each other's position in that DR and that's why I decided upon the basis of the nomination, whose arguments were not refuted by the commenters. And finally, it is not a vote, the decision was taken on the strength of arguments. Bedivere (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere: That's bad decision, but worse, you shouldn't close the UDR when you deleted the file, and it is controversial. I am going to revert that. Yann (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to Yann, for UDR. Regards, Aafi (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The undeletion request was for the category, not the files though, but I don't mind having it restored. My point is already explained. Bedivere (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere, you're pretty much wrong here. The undeletion request was not for the category alone. Regards, Aafi (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UDR is now closed again. The reason why I undeleted the category fast was that the requestor had a valid reason to recreate it on their own, and it was easier to just restore it. I had to look at the other two separately. The ex libris was obviously in scope as a historical American example. The 1985 photograph of Boisot was definitely an edge case. If we were just looking at the photo, I could see why Bedivere deleted it. Putting it in context with the other media on Boisot though, I decided to undelete it as media that would be useful to local historians as Boisot did get press coverage in the society pages, and it compliments the other historical newspaper photograph we have of her. Abzeronow (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well done @Abzeronow. Thanks Bedivere (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds good but the evidence is that the image was in use at the time of deletion per the file history. Commons:Project scope: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose. ... It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope." --RAN (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You continue to deliberately ignore the facts. You created the item so that the file was "in scope" here. The Wikidata items are linked from Commons and so they are "in scope" there. I could go and create some Wikidata items for some completely irrelevant neighbor of mine, upload a couple of photos, link them here and there and then pretend they are in scope on Wikidata and Commons. If that is not actively disrupting the projects (Commons and Wikidata), I don't know what is. Out of respect, and expecting somebody else to take the mop, I haven't taken more severe action against you and several others who have acted and continue to pretend me and others as fools. Fortunately, just today, some deletions have taken place on Wikidata and I am sure you can't call the deleting admin a retaliatory or vindictive one. Bedivere (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. That's what we got on hand with extremely non notable people like run of the mill editor writing articles on their mom, dad, grandma, and grandpa, nephews, nieces, the houses they loved in, their pets, the businesses they started. Graywalls (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RAN accuses anyone who disagrees with them of harrasement or being retaliatory. I hardly have anything to do with him myself but apparently I'm harrassing him just because I voted to delete a Wikidata item for one of his family members. Go figure. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not accuse everyone of harassment There were over 280,000 active editors in August 2024, just one accusation of harassment here at Commons. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) where Bedivere nominated 423 of my uploads as revenge for reversing a single edit they had made. User:Andy Dingley wrote: "(targeted at any editor here) is the sort of action that raises very real concerns over the fitness of an admin". I think most people would agree that nominating 423 uploads after reversing a single edit would constitute harassment.
He also deleted multiple photos that I uploaded. My friend created them and released them, and I supplied how they were marked with the YouTube CC-BY Marking. They were still deleted. See here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by LordBirdWord LordBirdWord (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
George Micro has no rights to release these images under a CC-BY license on YouTube or anywhere. That is why other files were deleted before and that is why yours were speedily deleted too. Bedivere (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan fahad alshahrani

[edit]

Violates {{No selfies}}. Jonteemil (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a month, files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khodjiyev Maruf Makhmudjonovich

[edit]

Sockpuppetry. Sock is blocked on ruwiki for what appears to be advertising. Jonteemil (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also probably all uploads by both accounts are out of scope and should hence be deleted, or at least gone through. Jonteemil (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Sock blocked, master account warned. Some files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenGully

[edit]

This user is only uploading copyrighted contents from social medias. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No activity after last warning in 17th of August. Taivo (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Kironshikder

[edit]

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

This user not only uploaded a bunch of images that were deleted a year or two ago, but they just did it again. Pretty low urgency, I understand, but someone more familiar with Commons should at least keep an eye on them just in case. I dream of horses (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment It is important to know that his last uploaded photo's description (File:Ziaul.png) states that it was directly uploaded from Facebook. Looks like he is not maintaining copyright law. Mehedi Abedin 22:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I warned the user. All contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My potential future block

[edit]

I will admit, in the past I did upload pictures that were copyright. I apologize and it is my fault.

Currently I am 1 copyright violation away from being blocked. It makes sense, if some of the photos that were deleted and taken down weren’t against copyright.

These include File:Mighty Music Group with Afroman (cropped).jpg (the original was deleted and since I cropped it, I got a violation), File:Karroll for POTUS 2024.jpg, File:Art Olivier 2024 via art2024.org.webp (Photographer Art Olivier he sent email to VRT) File:Randall Terry in 2024.jpg (cropped image of other image that is copyright).

In addition, I uploaded File:William Lee Hunt for President.jpg 2 times before I uploaded this file. It was deleted because they claimed the YouTube video it’s from (https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=iAvDIO7Z-b7OCe3o&v=F0i5KXMs2A4&feature=youtu.be) doesn’t have YouTube CC-BY marked, though it does. It’s currently being deleted again for the same reason, along with files File:Jackie Carpio, Host of Personal Politics.jpg and File:Daví for President.jpg that are derived from the same video.

Also, File:Tony Jones for Narragansett Town Council.jpg is being deleted because the moderator claims it’s not marked with YouTube CC-BY, though it is in the following video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=3ZXoth_HOQDkiwYa&v=1A4majDGAJY&feature=youtu.be

I apologize if I’m wasting whoever is reading this’s time. I just wanna know if I’m in the wrong or not.

Thank you, LordBirdWord LordBirdWord (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit waring by User:ckfasdf

[edit]

See File:Flag of North Kalimantan.svg. They repeatedly reverted me to restore a category that doesn't even exist. That's not even getting into if the flag is real or not either. Supposedly the source of the flag is "Lampiran II Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Kalimantan Utara Nomor 3 Tahun 2021 (Annex II of Regional Regulation of North Kalimantan Province No 3 Year 2021)" but I can't find it anywhere online and an another discussion the user sourced a bunch of fictional flags from Indonesia to random Google Drive files or URL that were dead links. Regardless, even if the flag were real they shouldn't be edit waring me to restore a red link. I messaged them about it on their talk page but apparently they just want to go off an nonsensical rant about it and continue the edit waring. Adamant1 (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason that category no longer exists is because Adamant1 systematically removed it, as seen in the cases of Aceh, Bangka-Belitung, Central Java, North Kalimantan, and others Indonesian provinces. Adamant1 keeps insisting that the provincial flag is fictional and has also ignored the fact that the flag originates from a regulation, with the source linked from the North Kalimantan government's official website. And lastly, his message on my talk page was properly replied to, but he stopped responding when I provided my rationale. So, who is being nonsensical here? Ckfasdf (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the files from the category and put them into one for fictional flags because they are unsourced and I couldn't find any evidence that they were real when I researched it. That's just how this works. If an image of a flag is unsourced and can't be found online then it's put in a "fictional flags" category. I really don't see how that's a reason for you to edit war me to restore a deleted category anyway. Your just making excuses.
Aside from that the link you provided for the regulation is dead, or at least won't load on my end. I can't find an image of the flag anywhere else online except for user generated websites either. You can claim the flag originates from a regulation all day, but there's no reason to take your word for it since you repeatedly linked to unsourced user created images and dead links in the CfD to try and prove other flags existed. So there's no reason I'd believe you about it. More so considering your attitude and the edit waring. Regardless though, you should have at least waited until the conversation (if not the DR) before restoring the category. I had a perfectly legitimate reason to move the files and it's not collaborative to repeatedly revert someone your in the middle of discussing things with. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: Since you're unable to access the regional government website while it's working perfectly fine for me, have you even thought about the possibility that the link might be restricted to Indonesia? Maybe you'd finally figure it out if you used a VPN and set your location to Indonesia. This is what shows on my screen, in case you're still confused. If you visit the state auditor website and click 'download,' you'll still get the same regulation you keep refusing to acknowledge. Anyway, since the CfD is now closed with a 'clear consensus to keep,' it only makes sense to conclude that the provincial flag isn't a copyvio or fictional, despite your claims. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

محمد شیرازی سلیمانی

[edit]

Keeps uploading copyvios and also reuploads previously deleted copyvios, after having been given {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week and mass deleted all his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylam X

[edit]

Violates {{Dont remove delete}} twice, one after having been given the warning. Both at File:احمد شفيق.jpg. Jonteemil (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanrammawii ralte

[edit]

Obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lilian231

[edit]

Reuploads deleted content after warning. Jonteemil (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given a final warning, and the images deleted. Regards, Aafi (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People uploading multiple potentially copyrighted images

[edit]

The last section got me curious if any of the "permission needed" images I've been tagging have had people uploading multiple potentially copyrighted images, slowly, for a period of time. For emphasis and clarity, I'm not talking about people who upload one or two images without sending permission. I found two said people:

I dream of horses (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I warned them both. For Vanityorpride, that's enough, files are already tagged. Most of the files from Gregorcollins are probably not own works, and need checking, even if some might in the public domain for some reason. Yann (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry to keep responding but - unlike vanity pride and others who are ignorantly and perhaps maliciously uploading un-owned work - I am actually commissioned by copyright owners and just happen to have time to put them all up at once. it was my fault i didn't write the necessary wording when i put them up on commons and i should not have done them all at once, hence the red flags. But please don't lump me into all these people who are out to worsen wiki. i'm here to help Gregorcollins (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a misunderstanding. All those images i uploaded are not violations. I've already emailed the permissions at wiki commons to straighten it out. i'm here to make wiki better so uploading a non-copyrighted work would be nonsensical. i've gotten executor of wills and family who are owners of the work of all those photos to email them and straighten it out Gregorcollins (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you doing your job and flagging me - but again, misunderstanding. Reason I'm uploading multiple at once because I just happen to have some time to update the pages and upload relevant photos. Again, these are all 80 year old photos that the family owns and has approved me to put them up. Again, please check with wiki commons, I have had them email them to straighten it out. Thumbs up Gregorcollins (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gregorcollins: Hi, I repeat what I wrote to you on my talk page. OK, but you need to write better sources, authors, etc., and if you are not the author, we need evidence that the pictures are in the public domain. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gregorcollins: For example, who is the photographer of File:RandV.png? If it's you, could you please import the original image with EXIF data? If not, we need teh formal written permission from the copyright holder. Idem for File:MariaRandySupremeCourt.jpg and File:Ferryboat2.jpg (which was published on the Internet before being uploaded here). Yann (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i will find those. again, my library is not perfect and i will be more exacting with the copyrights. also, it's not clear because on wiki there is an option to choose if you don't know the author, that 'i got it off the internet' and there is a way to upload those with that option. i have had a couple that i uploaded under that category Gregorcollins (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing all your files, it is clear that you copied images from the Internet, and wrongly attributed authors to you. Do not do that again, or you will be blocked. Yann (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please note that there ARE INDEED images in my library that are rightfully attributed to me. I was a caregiver to many austrian figures and women who are like a treasure trove on wikipedia - it's one of the reasons why I feel lucky to be able to input productive info for future researtches - and so some of those pics i took myself with my own camera. but i agree there are likely some that aren't and i will NOT do that again so carelessly Gregorcollins (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gregorcollins: I strongly recommend that you
  1. go back through your uploads and make sure everything has correct attribution and date (fixing as needed)
  2. for all uploads that are not your own work, either link a source that shows that the licensing is correct, give a clear rationale as to why this is public domain (e.g. if it is clearly pre-1929 U.S. work then {{PD-US-expired}} should suffice), or start the COM:VRT process.
  3. don't upload more third-party files until you have completed those steps for all of your past uploads of third-party files.
By "strongly recommend" I mean you are skating on thin ice here, in terms of possibly being blocked if you keep doing uploads like this. Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ykazemi1991

[edit]

Yet another sock of Yousef kazemi, reuploading previously deleted files again. Jonteemil (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A1Cafel and hostile behaviour towards Flickr original sources

[edit]

A1Cafel has often explained to us that normal social mores do not apply to them and that as they are unable to achieve them, they cannot be expected to comply with them. They're also a most persistent uploader of Flickr content, often duplicated or inappropriately licensed (but woe betide anyone else who makes a similar mistake, as A1Cafel's main activity here is to nominate other's content for deletion on the thinnest of grounds!)

Most recently we have this: User_talk:A1Cafel#Request A Flickr source requesting that A1Cafel slow down from uploading their content, so that they may do it themselves. A very reasonable request, and we should always be gracious towards the photographers who create the material we rely on. A1Cafel's reply was 'unhelpful', shall we say. I replied myself here, but they blanked it without comment (as is their perfect right).

Is it time to seek a topic ban on A1Cafel for uploading from Flickr? It's an endless stream of trouble, it's very little benefit; a 'bot could do it better and without the licensing mistakes. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A1Cafel has often explained to us that normal social mores do not apply to them and that as they are unable to achieve them, they cannot be expected to comply with them. I was involved in at least the last couple of ANU complaints having to do with A1Cafel's behavior and I don't remember them ever saying that. So do you have diffs of where they have said anything even remotely along those lines or are you just making up stuff? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, User:A1Cafel, if a Flickr user is interested in uploading their content here themself, you should certainly allow them to do so rather than preempt them. -Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is they don’t seem to care going by the discussion on A1Cafel’s talk page. Plus I have seen them upload duplicates of what another contributor was uploading and even uploading photographs containing FoP/copyrighted elements, same type of material they DR others for. Will try and get some diffs when I get home but the lack of archiving will make it time consuming. Bidgee (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but uploaded it after 12 hours they changed the license is not preempt them IMO. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly I didn't read through the whole conversation on A1Cafel's talk page but it sounds like the original photographer didn't intend to upload the images to Commons but then decided to when they found out A1Cafel was doing it. Then they changed the licenses on some of their photographs in the process. I wouldn't put it on A1Cafel if that's what happened. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that particular issue is about the fact that A1Cafel applied a rule about (alleged) copyright protection on an element in a photograph of my hand that I uploaded, while four minutes after that deletion nomination they decided to upload a range of pictures from that same series, among which was one photograph with an element that would have violated Commons rules. I then informed them about this double standards and them violating the same rule they applied to me. After that they decided to upload a version of my photograph with a blurred element in it just so it would fit within the Commons rules. Let's just put it bluntly. This is about hypocrisy. Somebody who is hunting down violations and does mass nominate photos for violations, while at the same times doesn't apply that rule to themselves. In this particular example, the blurred part is also part of the political message which the photo is about, effectively vandalizing and damaging the whole purpose of the photo.l, hence my appeal to have it deleted altogether. This is not about the permission change but about the fact that the image was firstly uploaded in violation with the rules (hence I was not planning to upload it, while allowing it to be used wherever it would fit in the rules, a CC2 license is not exclusive to Commons. And secondly, it's about altering the image to fit in the rules correcting the violating that the uploader in all their haste at first did not notice, and thereby effectively vandalizing the political message of the activist and therefore render the photo useless and pointless. Labrang (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your aware that the CC2 license allows for people to modify the image for any purpose right? I don't really see why that wouldn't include someone blurring part of the want to. You can complain its vandalism all day, but your the who released the image under a license that allows for it to be modified. And so what if A1Cafel blurred the file after uploading it? We do that all the time. At least they noticed the problem and fixed it. Which isn't the case with most of the image they nominate for deletion BTW. A lot of uploaders could really care less about following copyright and most of them don't fix offending images after the fact when its brought up to them. So I don't really see what the issue is here. Like only people who have a 100% perfect record can nominate images for deletion. Anyway I'd suggest changing the license on your images if your going to be that offended by someone modifying them. I'm not sure if CC2 can be retracted though. So.... --Adamant1 (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"You released this file under Creative Commons, so your fault when we mess with your work [Next time don't do that]" - This attitute from multiple people is very disrespectful towards the actual creators of the high quality content we want & need.
Obviously, the licence allows it. But basic collegiality, which is also expected on Commons dosen't. If a author wants to organize their collection on Commons themselfes, instead of everything being quickly dumped, and requests to do so, then this should be respected. (Those authors don't want something, they provide volunteer work) I don't see why that would even be up for discussion. If a uploader dosen't want their files overwritten, then this should be respected. ~TheImaCow (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify I don't have an issue with Labrang saying they don't want their photographs to be modified if they are uploaded to Commons. That's their prerogative. My problem is purely with them saying blurrying out part of the photograph is "vandalizing the political message of the activist and therefore render the photo useless and pointless." Since as you say basic collegiality is expected on Commons and photoraphers don't get a special pass from that just because their photographs are high quality or whatever. 100% a photographer can ask someone not to overwrite one of their photographs but they should do it without baselessly screaming vandalism at the drop of a hat. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support indefinite block – they were blocked indefinitely for similar discourse of disruptive behavior a while back, but this discussion gives me little hope they have changed. I'm afraid to say that this is the only course of solution, except that a potential unblock request in the future should also be voted on by the community. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The last time this account was blocked (indefinitely, by the way), I thought they would wait some time before requesting their return to the project, something like 6 months to a year. But they came back a month later... At the time, Mdaniels5757 had pinged me to give my opinion on A1Cafel's return, but I chose to remain silent due to my conflicts with the user. Well, whatever is decided here, I believe that if the block is not permanent, we will eventually face the same problems as before. It's a shame... I was thinking of suggesting that the user request an unblock on the English Wikipedia – I would support that – to "clean" their global history. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that the users behaviour can be seen as rude, and I'd say it's hardly acceptable to disregard the photographers request to upload images themselves, so the initial statement here is reasonable. On the other hand, there are DW issues with the photographers' uploads, and their replies to A1Cafel are no less rude, besides they are wrong. I'd suggest A1Cafel should respect request for not uploading images and leave more time for photographers to upload themselves, and if A1Cafel agrees, this issue is resolved without anything further. --Krd 06:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, and I will refrain from uploading files from Labrang's Flickr stream (Jelger Groeneveld). --A1Cafel (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

user:Yurechkonazarii

[edit]

User is on a censorship crusade, nominating things that aren’t even pornographic like File:Gay Sex - Jong & Out.webm, an educational video where gay men discuss sex. Dronebogus (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week (for a start). I also blocked 186.173.72.252, probably the same user. Yann (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this user was previously Special:Contributions/188.92.251.201. Yann (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirleybellmore

[edit]

Shirleybellmore have reuploaded two of Shirleynude's previously deleted images. Based on that and the similar usernames sockpuppetry is very likely. Jonteemil (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Shirleynude is blocked, Shirleybellmore is warned. Yann (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Should be the other way around I think. I wrote them in the wrong order in my original post, sorry for that.Jonteemil (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done OK, so I also blocked Shirleybellmore indef. These are also not selfies, so we would need the photographer(s)' permission. NOT HERE anyway. Yann (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marianooss

[edit]

Reuploads deleted copyvios by accounts PauRep and A3f8 which both are socks of the same master so one would assume Marianooss also is a sock. Jonteemil (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files for details. Jonteemil (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I blocked Marianooss and another sockpuppet and mass deleted uploads. Taivo (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:NuManDavid

[edit]

At this DR user insulted me after I defended them and told another user to “take [their] opinion for a long walk off a short dock” (or basically, “take your opinion and jump off a cliff”) This also isn’t the first time they’ve been here: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 113#Dronebogus name calling and bad faith comment. These two incidents display entitlement, hypocrisy and general rudeness— traits that are not compatible with a collaborative project. They should probably be sanctioned at this point. Dronebogus (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to act unilaterally here, so I'd like at least one other admin to way in, but I think a one-month block is in order for uncalled-for rudeness. - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: That seems appropriate to me. This user is wildly out of line. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dronebogus started the name calling and bad faith months ago. Now they stuck their nose in my business again where it didn't belong. I don't think telling them that I didn't need them to defend me and referring to them as a pilgarlic (a man looked upon with humorous contempt or mock pity) is fitting. Again Dronebogus chose me as an enemy and chose to get involved where they had not business. NuManDavid (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You accuse me of name calling, and yet call me names. That is hypocrisy. You act like you have a right to post low-quality porn (which I did not call the uploads in the current DR) and get mad when people nominate it for deletion. That is entitlement. And I don’t need to explain why me defending you against unfair attacks, only to be attacked and characterized as an “enemy”, is not only rude but ungrateful. You need to understand that your simple presence here, let alone your ability to upload and contribute, is a privilege, which can be revoked at any time. Dronebogus (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support One month block per Jmabel for the pilgarlic comment, which is rather insulting (even if NuManDavid thinks it's accurate). Telling users to go walk of a short dock or jump of a cliff isn't great either. Comments like that could be taken as insinuating that the person should commit suicide. Although I don't think that's how NuManDavid meant them, but their still uncivil regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done Blocked for a month Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I closed the DR and deleted the file in question. Taivo (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the block, and notice that this user also gratuitously insulted me, but User:Taivo, was the nominated file in fact stolen from another site? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful. I think the request should be undone. Dronebogus (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:WeatherFollower

[edit]

WeatherFollower (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is uploading satellite images from NASA Worldview, which is GFDL, but always claims them as his own work. Me and other users corrected that on many images and I tried to explain that he must put the real source and proper copyright for his uploads but he continues. Could an administrator remind him the right procedure?

Pierre cb (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User1648

[edit]

Uploads blatant copyvios after having been given {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=925546744"