Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 115

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

Comunicação MKT 2024

Comunicação MKT 2024 is likely a sock of Comunicação Paulistano. Overlap on both File:Logo Paulistano Oficial.svg (see log) and pt:Club Athletico Paulistano. Also the apparent similarities in the username. The master was blocked on ptwiki, hence the need to create a sockpuppet. Jonteemil (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Re @Yann: You only blocked the sock, not the master, was that on purpose? Jonteemil (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the master has only one edit here, and I am a supporter of Give 'em enough rope. Yann (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Gotcha. Jonteemil (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
That is inconsistent with the behavior of other Admins, and what that essay says (there is no block or unblock request in evidence on this project).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Quickero005

Persistent reuploads of deleted content. --Geohakkeri (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month (2nd block). Yann (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Zothanpuii pautu

Yet another obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar, see Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Estradadarwin1035

This user uploads File:One TV logo.svg which is the same file as File:OneTVLogo2023.svg, uploaded by Estradadarwin29 who is blocked indef for being a sock of Yuiyui2001. Given the similarities in the username and the fact that they show up at User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files I would assume it too is a sock. There is also Estradadarwin30 who also is a sock. Jonteemil (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for socking, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

More Yuiyui2001 socks

These also seem to be Yuiyui2001 socks such as #Estradadarwin1035 above. Plenty of overlap and the apparent similarities in the username. All accounts are blocked on enwiki for socking. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done All blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Ufaizckd

Another Bobanfasil sock. Overlap at w:All India Sevens Football and w:Thahir Zaman with other socks. Also uploaded File:All India Sevens Football Association Badge.png which seems identical to a file uploaded by another, now blocked, Bobanfasil sock. Jonteemil (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by CptViraj. Yann (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Counterfeit Purses

See the "follow up" comment in the discuss about Dronebogus above this and the user's talk page. As well as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reverse ekiben sex position.png. It's pretty clear they are just here to concern troll and stir up drama. Adamant1 (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. How am I "stirring up drama" by saying that I understand what people were telling me about Dronebogus's self-made illustrations? I saw what I thought was a problem, I started a discussion here, other users disagreed that it was a problem, and I accept their opinion. That's it. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I think you know. You should have dropped the whole thing and moved on instead of uploading an image that's clearly OOS just to continue a dispute and prove a point. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
How is File:Reverse ekiben sex position.png out of scope? What point do you think I am trying to prove? How am I continuing a dispute by stating that the dispute is resolved? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I know "Adamant bad." Anyone who isn't in this just to be an axe grinding opportunist can look into Counterfeit Purses editing history to see that they have absolutely no experience in the area what-so-ever and just uploaded the image to be pointy and continue their dispute with Dronebogus. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
just uploaded the image to be pointy You really need to stop assigning motives to other editors. Comment on the edits, not the editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Saying someone is trollling is litterally just a descriptor of their behavior. In the same way reporting someone for vandalism is. I've certainly taken accusations of vandalism as assigning motives to my behavior in the past. Yet its still somwthing that's against the rules just like trolling and that people get reported for all the time. Its not on me that your taking it personally. There's no poit in doing this if we aren't allowed to portray each others actions in a negative way. Your certainly fine doing that to me essentially every time you have a chance to. Be my guest and stop making everything personal if really have that much of an issue with it. The endless hypocrisy on your end of these types of discussions is getting tiring though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Trolling But you haven't described any instance of them trolling. "We only have one poor image and so I'm going to make a better one" is not a bad faith action. It's a behaviour we want here. You might just about use that in a DR post, but to go immediately to ANU? That's not justified. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
That's not what they said though and as I pointed out in the DR they spent almost a month badgering Dronebogus about uploading personal drawings and using them other projects. Then they posted that they did the exact same thing an in ANU that was clearly resolved. I could care less if you disagree with that. It's your prerogative if you disagree that's trolling. But it certainly comes of to me that way and I have every right to report someone to ANU if I feel their behavior is inappropriate. There was nothing immediate about this though. Their behavior has been an issue for at least a couple of weeks, if not longer. Your free to disagree and move on, but at spare me the two faced sanctimony next time about my behavior next time. I'm tired of dealing with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
CP’s behavior towards me is undeniably sloppy and needlessly hostile. Just scroll up a few sections to see examples. Andy Dingley jumping on their upload to basically re-litigate a DR against mine with no new arguments besides “a better version now exists” is also kind of lousy (at best). But I think the real problem is that everyone is still waving their guns at everyone else over such a silly issue. CP didn’t need to continually pester me about trivial incidents, Adamant1 didn’t need to file this, and AD didn’t need to file an unnecessary and opportunistic deletion request. Why is it so hard for everyone to just drop this? Dronebogus (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

CLOSING COMMENT All parties please keep in mind the purpose of the site, too much "I", not enough focus on scope. Measure of participation is alignment with Commons' scope and purpose. Numbers of parties are not showing the best of themselves.

  • Adamant1 -- please look to your approach, you appear here too often; first blush ... too much pugilism
  • Counterfeit Purses -- I wouldn't call it trolling behaviour though a provocative first upload, especially looking at where you have contributed and what you are doing onsite. It is the perception of what you are doing, and where you are doing it. Having a broader corpus of contribution can give a wider basis of understanding.
  • Dronebogus -- don't join battles when you don't need to

Re AI images; while I generally don't like them (personal opinion), this is a case where it could be claimed that it retains a usable purpose, even if it is an unrealistic portrayal.

 Not done  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)


Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Altair Netraphim/Disclaimer

The licence template at User:Altair Netraphim/Disclaimer, applied to a couple of hundred of that user's images, says that these images are CC-BY licenced, but specifies three additional and original clauses that seem fundamentally incompatible with COM:LICENSING:

  • The statement that YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO UPLOAD THIS FILE TO ALL SOCIAL NETWORKS. Other anti-Facebook templates of this nature were discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nofacebook and Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates a few years ago, with the conclusion being that such a restriction goes against Commons scope, with the WMF taking a similar view.
  • The requirement that For printed publication, you must contact the author via email for approval. This goes against the "anyone, anytime, for any purpose" basics of Commons licensing, uploaders cannot pick and choose which publishers are allowed to reuse an image.
  • Of printed publications, the requirement to Use the highest resolution as soon as possible. - assuming that's meant as an instruction to use the highest resolution possible, that's ruling out anyone who would prefer to use a lower resolution for whatever reason (eg. printing a poster in low quality monochrome to save ink or money, even though a higher resolution would be technically possible).

I raised these concerns on the user's talk page in June, following it up in July, but have gotten no response. It would be helpful to get their perspective on whether this licence should be rephrased, or - if they wish to retain these restrictions on reuse - the images removed from Commons for being incompatible with COM:LICENSING. Belbury (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see the issue here. The discussed issue about FB also exists for other social networks. And it is usually accepted that modified versions should be uploaded as separate files. Yann (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The question is not the requirement to upload on Commons separately, it is the requirement that all external reusers must contact the author by email for approval of printed use. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah yes, right. I let a message again on their talk page. Yann (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
When you say the discussed issue about FB also exists for other social networks, have I misunderstood Commons' view on "no Facebook" type templates? I assumed from the linked deletion requests that they were against licencing policy. Belbury (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Incompatible with free licensing. Files with non-free requirements cannot be kept. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Totally agree with Asclepias here. I ran into a similar license a few months ago and asked the user to change it to remove the requirements, which it they did. You might try that and then nominate the images for deletion if they are unwilling to. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I asked exactly that on the talk page that I link to, back in June, but it got no response. Belbury (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh. Then I'd support a block if they don't respond to this or Yann on their talk page since I think it's enough chances for them to address the problem. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:188.92.251.201

Another user just trying to censor videos of sex without a legitimate rationale Dronebogus (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done IP with an agenda, blocked for 3 days, all DRs closed. Yann (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Mohmad Abdul sahib

Seems to be the same IP editor with an agenda that was just blocked. Dronebogus (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I consolidated.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Zomuanpuii joute

Yet another obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar, see Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Quick1984

A user threatens to block me. (1). --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked Engelberthumperdink for 3 months. Already several blocks before, but it seems the message didn't get through. Next block should be indefinite. Yann (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Lallawmzuali ralte

Yet another obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar, see Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: ✓ Done thanks to EPIC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, however is it really necessary with a global lock when the socks only seem to edit Commons? Can't they just be handled locally instead? There is no cross-wiki abuse, just locally here on Commons. Jonteemil (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jonteemil: The master was locked for "Cross-wiki abuse " after uploading copyvios here and spam on www.mediawiki.org.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I know but I haven't seen the socks editing any other wiki than Commons. A global lock hence seems unnecessary but I might be wrong. Jonteemil (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jonteemil: Details of the original claim are archived at m:Steward requests/Global/2023-w44#Global lock for Chhanchhana zote hmar. Details of any Checkuser evidence are not shared outside the Checkusers, Stewards, and other Functionaries.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not arguing the global lock of the master but rather the socks. But let's end this discussion, it's a trifle and not something worth spending more time on. Jonteemil (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

DMA180guy

DMA180guy is likely a sock of BMarGlines. What makes me believe this is that the master uploaded File:WBNG-DT2 2024.svg which was deleted and then reuploaded by the sock. See also interaction on Wikipedia. All uploads also look exactly the same in terms of layout of the file pages. Jonteemil (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

However w:User talk:DMA180guy#KTUU & KATH logos makes me doubtful. Perhaps it'd be better if a checkuser checks on this in a sock investigation instead? Like, why would a master communicate with their sock? Jonteemil (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jonteemil: Spreading FUD.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
It's possible. Would you propose a sock investigation? Jonteemil (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jonteemil: You may at COM:RFCU with evidence which includes diffs / upload log entries.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Ckfrlgud1

Ckfrlgud1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent uploading of copyrighted materials. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user, all uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Ramliani zahau

Yet another obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar, see Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm kind of supprised there isn't a point where someone doesn't just get their IP address range blocked or something after that many socks. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Navi Capitani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent uploading of copyrighted materials. User's uploads were mass-deleted 2 times already (1, 2); the user was notified on their talk page about the deletions. Yet, the user has again uploaded copyrighted material. Please delete, and block(?) the user. DmitTrix (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Ahmedragabb

Ahmedragabb (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) seems to have reuploaded images that were previously deleted after receiving a warning. Can an admin please give them a sterner one and re-delete the files? Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Illegitimate Barrister

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Locke Cole blocked for 3 months for their conduct in this thread. No further action needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)


Editor is violating Wikimedia licensing requirements/terms of use by uploading works by other editors from other projects and not providing attribution. See for example, File:Wordmark of Spokane Valley, Washington.svg and en:File:Logo of Spokane Valley, Washington.svg (the original, byte for byte identical file). It's also unclear if they understand COM:TOO, but the attribution violations are a clear issue. Given the number of uploads they've made, I request for someone to go through all their uploads and determine if they are actually the original uploader or if they're simply lifting work by editors on other Wikimedia projects and claiming it as their own. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that now the editor has taken to uploading PNG versions of the files which were speedily deleted as exceeding COM:TOO. The prior concerns about attribution still remain for this editors other uploads. I'd almost suggest a preventative block until this user discloses how many other files they've uploaded from other Wikimedia projects that aren't actually their own work. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't see the supposed issue. If you upload fair use material to local Wikipedias and it turns ot that the material is actually PD/can be hosted on commons, and it is moved to Commons, then there is zero need to attribute you in any way, as you aren't the author, you only uploaded someone elses work, and this "someone else" needs to be attributed - and this has been done apparently. TheImaCow (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
there is zero need to attribute you in any way Thank you for clarifying that you don't understand the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. Per foundation:Policy:Terms_of_Use#7._Licensing_of_Content, "b. Attribution: Attribution is an important part of these licenses. We consider it giving credit where credit is due – to authors like yourself." This is non-negotiable, and if an editor is stealing other users work, then they need to be banned until such issues can be resolved. If I'm the first one to ever notice them doing this, that's unfortunate, but doesn't change the fact that attribution is absolutely required on all Wikimedia projects per Foundation policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Are you sure that you are the original author of some US town's logo? Is it truly your work, or did you just took it from https://www.spokanevalleywa.gov/? Do you understand the difference between uploader/author?
- If you are the original author of this work (converting the work to SVG, upscaling it etc dosen't make you the author), then obviously you need to be attributed.
- If you are not the original author, then you don't need to be attributed as the author, as you aren't the author. It's not that hard. People can attribute you as the uploader besides the original author, but it is in no way required neither by policy/TOS/legally, let alone blockable. TheImaCow (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I am not the original author. I am the contributor who found and created the SVG file. You are not an administrator and thus your participation in this discussion is... confusing. You have no say in this, and this doesn't concern you. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear: non-administrators are more than welcome to comment in discussions here, though discouraged from dominating the discussion. (1) One of the main ways we find potential new admins is who contributes usefully in discussions such as these and shows a deep understanding of administrative issues. (2) Other than an expectation of a certain amount of general policy expertise, admins really only have two ways we are singled out: (2a) we are considered to have the community's general confidence to enforce and to act in accord with community consensus and (2b) in discussions where some conclusion must be drawn, we are trusted to weigh arguments on the various sides and to be familiar enough with policy to appropriately square the immediate expression of views with policy. As far as I can think, any other thing we do can just as appropriately be done by a non-admin. - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The Foundation Terms of Use are not subject to individual project's consensus mechanisms: I literally do not need non-administrators soapboxing this, I need an administrator to act and put the goals of the project ahead of one individual user engaging in plagiarism. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Also relevant is w:Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons, specifically for manual moves from English Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons, "A copy of the local upload log — You must state the username of each uploader and the date/time at which the upload was performed". These are not optional precisely because of the Terms of Use. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
If you want to wikilaywer, then at least cite the entire section, "You must state the username of each uploader and the date/time at which the upload was performed. This is a strict requirement for the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses."
The file in question is (allegedly) public domain, and therefore dosen't need the username of some person who released the file under that licence - because neither that person nor that licence exists. TheImaCow (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Please learn how to read. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Please refrain from using personal attacks.
en:Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons is not a policy or even a guideline, nor is it on Commons. TheImaCow is quite right, recreating a logo doesn’t make it your own work as you are not the original artist/designer/creator. Bidgee (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
That wasn't a personal attack. My recommendation to learn to read however applies to you as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
This is a warning to be civil or you will be blocked. In this context your learn to read comment is an attack. Gbawden (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I've been quite civil. It is not my responsibility to explain the English language to someone when they are clearly not understanding it. I'm assuming good faith that they genuinely do not understand the words and recommending they seek professional help to become better at it. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
It is indeed true that I am not native in English, and if anything I need a language course, not professional help.
Either way, I hope I dont need to explain to you that Commons is a multilingual project. TheImaCow (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Locke Cole Just to be clear, you're saying that the uploader of the image needs to be credited not the (presumably unknown) author of the original work? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
There is the person who authored the image and there is the person who uploaded the image (which is grossly simplifying it in my case). I did not simply find an image and upload it, I went over many PDF files to find a vector version of the logo, extracted the logo using Adobe Illustrator, removed any extraneous bits, and saved it as an SVG. How long this process takes varies from logo to logo, but it can vary from less than an hour, to days or weeks depending on how difficult it is to find a vector logo. Per the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use, attribution is a mandatory requirement for all contributions to Wikimedia projects. The act of uploading an image is a "contribution". Contributors don't get paid to work on these projects, the only "pay" we get is credit for our work ("Attribution is an important part of these licenses. We consider it giving credit where credit is due – to authors like yourself"). Illegitimate Barrister is taking credit for my work. They are likely taking credit for other users work as well. They should be blocked until the damage can be determined or they agree to disclose the actual sources of works they've uploaded. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
This sounds like a en:sweat of the brow argument, which is explicitly not a part of US copyright law. I thought it was pretty well established that making a slavish copy of a 2D PD item did not result in attaching a new level of licensing, no matter how much time and effort you put into doing it? DMacks (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I think you're confusing licensing with attribution. In these specific images, I think they exceed COM:TOO, and thus are fair use, but even supposing they are PD-eligible, that doesn't address attribution as per the Foundation's Terms of Use: "giving credit where credit is due" is a strong reason why many contribute to these projects. To take your reading of it, we don't need to give credit to people who provide content to Wikimedia projects. That is part of why many people contribute, not because they get paid but because they get to be recognized for contributing. Your interpretation would undermine that. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Indeed licensing and attribution are related but different ideas. Your start of this thread initially commented partially on licensing, but now seems like only attribution is the topic remaining in play. As you note ,"Attribution is an important part of these licenses", and PD does not require attribution as part of its licensing. Now Commons (or WMF, as its parent) can have a more strict requirement. The image in question was tagged "Author=unknown" by IB. That is a mistake: they should have cited where they got it (provenance being the enwiki file) or the origin of that file (spokanevalley.org URL, since that's what that file says is its origin) so re-users can verify that it is a correct image. But IB explicitly disclaimed being the creator of it or having any other involvement except uploading what they found somewhere else, so they are not stealing anyone's credit. DMacks (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
No, I opened with "Editor is violating Wikimedia licensing requirements/terms of use by uploading works by other editors from other projects and not providing attribution", I only speak of COM:TOO later as a secondary offense, but I even finish my initial report noting that attribution is the primary concern. Attribution is separate from and distinct from the licenses, all contributions to Wikimedia projects are irrevocably released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL. The actions I take are saved as metadata (the upload log) which provides the attribution that is necessary at a most basic level. When a user circumvents Special:ImportFile and manually downloads, then re-uploads as their "own" work, they are deliberately plagiarizing another users work. There is no nice way to describe this other than theft.
If Illegitimate Barrister wanted to do the work I did, they should have found the file themselves, opened it in a vector graphics editor, isolated the image they wanted, and uploaded it themselves. But they didn't. I did. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be credited in the file description when creating an SVG or something from scratch.
What you are doing however is reporting an editor who forgot that -still not mandatory- attribution on a single file (!!), you have apparently not once tried to discuss this with them on their talk page (!!!), and you explicitly demand them to be blocked for that single non-issue. (!!!!!)
And please read the notice on top of this page before suggesting me to seek professional help to me for being illiterate. TheImaCow (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
As an admin, seconding every word of what TheImaCow just wrote. If you want the file history from en-wiki noted, you can, of course, copy-paste it yourself, probably on the talk page of the file in question. Nothing here calls for administrative action against User:Illegitimate Barrister. (And if Locke Cole continues to question the literacy of other contributors, that would call for sanctions. I hope this will simply be the last time, and we can just put that behind us.) - Jmabel ! talk 19:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't know how much clearer the foundation's Terms of Use need to be for you to understand that you're wrong, but it's exceptionally disappointing for you to be supporting plagiarism as an administrator, and if you're not feeling any shame in that, then I don't know what else to tell you. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: if you really want to accuse me of "supporting plagiarism", please make that a COM:AN/U report in its own right, and request that I be sanctioned for it. Otherwise, I just consider that an ummerited personal attack. I'll even promise that if you request sanctions against me for this I will not to respond to the report to defend myself, unless I am specifically addressed to answer a question, because I am confident that the main response to the accusation will be laughter. No, it is not "plagiarism" to fail to acknowledge you in uploading a file in which you have no intellectual property rights. Are we also supposed to acknowledge the printer of every book we cite? The person who developed the film on anything that came from a film camera? - Jmabel ! talk 05:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Since apparently there's no administrators on this project willing to follow the Foundation's Terms of Use, I've submitted an email to legal@wikimedia.org to determine their position on this. If they agree, I'll simply stop working on anything image related with regards to Wikimedia projects, because it's clear my work is not valued or respected. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Locke Cole Thank you for the work you have done on this and probably other images. As others have already said, there is no requirement for anyone to credit you for that work. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
"there is no requirement for anyone to credit you for that work" So the Foundation Terms of Use is garbage and we can just take other users work as our own? giving credit where credit is due is just a suggestion and not mandatory, other users be damned? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
If I say upload a scan of a postcard I'll usually credit myself in the source field as the one who created the scan while citing the postcard publisher as the author. It's questionable someone else reusing the image has to give me credit for the scan. As I'm not the original creator of the postcard. Although they should credit the postcard publisher instead of acting like it's their own work. The same goes for other people who upload similar images. It's tangential, but we seem to have a serious problem with citing themselves as the creators of works that clearly weren't made by them even if they took a photograph of it or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I can't speak for off-Wikimedia usage, in theory CC-BY-SA/GFDL should require attribution just as it does on Wikimedia projects (because, again, why do all the work of finding old postcards and scanning them in if someone else will just take the work and claim it as their own).. but as far as Wikimedia projects are concerned, in addition to those licenses, we have the TOU that explicitly sets out attribution as being important and "giving credit where credit is due". I would feel shame taking your work and using it elsewhere without disclosing your contribution to the provenance that got the file to me (take your pic on Wiktionary definitions of "provenance"; "3. (art) The history of ownership of a work of art" or "4. (computing) The copy history of a piece of data, or the intermediate pieces of data used to compute a final data element, as in a database record or web site (data provenance)". And perhaps it's this name we should use for describing the situation (credit to @DMacks, above, for using the word first in this thread). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Locke Cole You are reading something into the terms of use that isn't there. There is no requirement for you to be credited for the type of work that you have described. You are not the creator of the images or the copyright holder. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Pretty sure I'm not reading something that isn't there. Attribution is clearly listed, "credit where credit is due" is the goal, and anyone with even a minor moral compass understands that plagiarism is morally wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree its probably "morally wrong" not to credit someone for recrating a work, but there's a difference between that and someone being required to credit the person. They aren't the same thing and no is required to credit the reproducer unless its explicity part of the license. But even that case you probably don't have to legally credit them because is false to begin with. Personally I'm not going to waste my crediting some random user another website that I got a file from just because they happen to be the one who uploaded it there. We aren't obligated to credit everyone who interacts with an image in some online. Cool they converted it from a tiff file to a jpeg and uploaded it to Flickr, but so what? It's still not their work. So you should prbably just stop the stick and move on. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
This is where the terms of use are clear that "credit where credit is due" is important. "So you should prbably just stop the stick and move on" I mean, that's unlikely to happen when clear and obvious plagiarism is ongoing. I have a better idea: we hold users accountable when it's clear and obvious they attempt to take credit for another users work. If your intention is to damage this community by saying "sure, go ahead and steal each others work", then taking your advice is a sure fire way to do it. But if you want to keep users who are actually contributing time and effort (and not lazy people who just upload other users work and try to take the credit) then maybe take this a bit more seriously? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
A good percentage of my time on here is spent dealing with COPYVIO. So it's something I take more seriously enough when it's an actual issue. Your taking the guideline to literally to Wikilaywer though. If this was an actual issue, let alone plagiarism, then it would have already been dealt with by an administrator. The fact that it hasn't been should be a sign that this is a nothing burger. Or are you going to argue that administrators on here just don't care about COPYVIO? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
"Or are you going to argue that administrators on here just don't care about COPYVIO?" Well if the shoe fits... I don't think it's "wikilawyering" to ask that we follow the Foundation's Terms of Use and give credit where credit is due. Seems pretty basic, honestly. Personally, I wish the software did something similar to the duplicate upload check where if someone tries to upload a byte-for-byte identical file to something that already exists on another Wikimedia project, their upload is blocked and they're invited to use Special:ImportFile so the attribution history is maintained. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Nth-ing the above. Locke Cole is just plain wrong in their understanding, and I see no action needed related to Illegitimate Barrister.
  1. w:File:Logo of Spokane Valley, Washington.svg has no license. Notwithstanding that it's more likely than not {{PD-Simple}}, it has at all times, and is currently, purported to be used under a fair use exemption. {{Non-free logo}} is not a license; it is merely a template denoting non-free content. (This inherent to fair use in this context; the copyright holder has not granted a license, but it is used nevertheless under the exemption.)
  2. The cited terms ("7.b. Attribution: Attribution is an important part of these licenses. We consider it giving credit where credit is due – to authors like yourself") are not applicable as a) per above, there is no license; b) relatedly, a non-existent license cannot be a member of "these licenses"; and c) the quotation is taken out-of-context; it is a continuation of the preceding section ("7.a. Text to which you hold the copyright")--"these licenses" refer to CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL referenced 7.a. and, indeed, the very next 7.b. sentence (i.e., following the cherry-picked quote) is "When you contribute text ..." (underline added). The relevant section for images is 7.d. Non-text media:, but also not germane to this concern as it too is dependent upon a license.
  3. Even if w:File:Logo of Spokane Valley, Washington.svg had a license, there would be no issue. As noted above, "[going] over many PDF files to find a vector version of the logo, extract[ing] the logo using Adobe Illustrator, remov[ing] any extraneous bits, and sav[ing] it as an SVG" is nothing but sweat of the brow, which the United States does not consider to impart an intellectual property interest. Even if it did, such an interest would be limited to the added original (novel) authorship, which is none per Locke Cole's own description (and, again, this is more likely than not {{PD-Simple}}). Эlcobbola talk 22:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    @Elcobbola So... it's okay to steal other people's work and not give credit where credit is due. The Foundation Terms of Service are a lie. Thank you for clearing that up. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

COM:L

Also worth noting is COM:L which states "the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not: ... [t]he Source of the material. ... Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible" (emphasis added). A complete citation would include where the uploader found it, in addition to other users who contributed to the file that was ultimately uploaded here. I am, again, embarrassed on behalf of pretty much everyone above who appears to be taking the side of a plagiarist, but here we are. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

COM:L also says Note: Things like "Transferred from Wikipedia" are generally not considered a valid source unless that is where it was originally published. The primary source should be provided. You are not the source of an image that you have taken from a PDF. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
What part of "regardless if the license requires it or not" is unclear to you? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Locke Cole I'm dropping out of this discussion, but I was only trying to help you. You seem to have a very fixed idea and you are taking words that appear in the terms of use out of context. Illegitimate Barrister does not seem to be claiming that their public domain uploads are their own work so there is no plagiarism. Maybe stop and ask yourself why everyone seems to be telling you the same thing? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Imagine thinking wanting credit for your work to be such a controversial subject on a project dedicated to free use media. Y’all are wild. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Per my other comment above, you do not "just want credit" -nothing wrong with that, could have added your name to the file description "SVG version created by Locke Cole" and leave a message to IB-, no, you want to block people who forgot such attribution a single time, and without talking with them a single time about this. TheImaCow (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I've imposed a 2 week block as a result of their continuing upload of non-free files, and as a result of this discussion. Illegitimate is a long-term user, they should definitely know better. Bedivere (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    Proof of any recently deleted unfree files? Very poor block. Bidgee (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed, all recent DR notices on their talk page are still open and are about quite complex copyright situations, not "upload random internet files and say you made them"-type situations.
    And "result of this thread"? I see clear consensous that there is no issue with forgetting to attribute someone a single time when that attribution is not required by any guideline etc. TheImaCow (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    You cannot use consensus to override the Foundation Terms of Use. I'd think this would be obvious, but if there's one thing I've learned about Commons, there's not a lot of common sense amongst the users who regularly participate here. Which is why I've avoided this project. But seeing my work plagiarized has unfortunately forced me to get involved here. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Quite a disappointing response by Bedivere. [1] Bidgee (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    @Bidgee Literally the first two comments in this report are about how Illegitimate Barrister persisted in uploading non-free content after having the SVG files speedily deleted. It's very hard to take this project seriously when people can just ignore facts right before their own eyes... —Locke Cole • t • c 03:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    ditto to TheImaCow. I see nothing on this thread to suggest that IB did anything wrong (and I long since advised Locke Cole that if they want credit there is nothing to stop them from adding it). This file turned out to be non-free, but it's a close call on COM:TOO, a mistake almost anyone could have made. Unless someone can point at a couple of egregious errors in terms of copyright issues, or a large number of reasonably clear errors, I'd support an immediate unblock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is wondering, User:Illegitimate Barrister has been unblocked. - Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Very unfortunate, none of the attribution issues has adequately been looked in to. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm certainly too involved a party to be the one to close this thread, but I think it is due to be closed. For the record, the accusation against me for "supporting plagiarism" has been neither substantiated nor withdrawn. - Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

So it should be closed because this project supports plagiarists? And as to you, specifically, it's substantiated by your defense of plagiarism, above, and why would I withdraw a plain fact? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Please cease making bad faith statements. You have completely misunderstood how copyright and the ToU works. Bidgee (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I haven't made any bad faith statements. I can read words, and the ToU is quite clear that the Foundation wants to give credit where credit is due. I'm sorry that you lot here don't appear to support that, but it doesn't change that it's true. A better idea would be to stop supporting users who steal other users work. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Bidgee's statement above. I'll note that Locke Cole has made personal attacks against TheImaCow and Jmabel that haven't been withdrawn, and I believe that Locke Cole appears to also en:WP:ICHY. I also agree with Jmabel and Elcobbola. Abzeronow (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Shocking, more people who support users who steal other users work. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for boomerang block

Per @Locke Cole: clear inability to get the point even after multiple administrator have said they are wrong. Along with the multiple insults towards the same admins that they refuse to withdraw or even acknowledge are an issue. At this point @Locke Cole: is clearly just being uncollaborative time suck. Competence is required and intentional or not they clearly lack it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Why would I be okay with having my work stolen? Again you guys are absolutely nuts. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately  Support. Locke Cole has been combative, making bad faith comments (after multiple requests to refrain) and lacks the competence. Bidgee (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    The only people lacking competence is pretty much everyone here. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support We don't need incivility on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    But apparently you do need plagiarism. Hey, serious question: if you drive off contributors who actually find and create images with this support of plagiarism, who will actually create images for your site? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    • I was so willing to let this drop, but Locke Cole clearly has no intention of withdrawing or even qualifying his personal attack of saying that I "support plagiarism". Further, he is now claiming that other contributors who, as far as I can tell, are doing perfectly appropriate things are "stealing". As one of the aggrieved parties, I support a block.
    • Let's look at the sequence here. Locke Cole started by, as far as I can tell, making no effort to work this out with User:Illegitimate Barrister, and came to the noticeboard with an entirely false claim that IB was claiming a file as his own work. IB was not claiming anything as his own work, he was saying it was {{PD-textlogo}}. This turned out to be incorrect because of COM:TOO, but that appears to have been an honest error and Locke Cole is still not the holder of the relevant copyright. People here have unanimously told Locke Cole he is misunderstanding the policy (or not-quite-policy) he keeps (selectively) quoting, and that the sort of contribution he made to the file in question is no more required to be credited than (my examples) a print shop that printed a document or a lab that developed film; conversely, that there is nothing wrong with crediting it and he is welcome to credit himself on such files (generally, in my view, a lot better remedy that starting a major conflict). He has responded by accusing us of "plagiarism" and "stealing", not to mention demonstrating a fair dose of They Were All Out of Step But Jim.
    • I have one thing to address directly to Locke Cole: No doubt you have made some valuable contributions and it would be some loss to the project to drive you off, but (1) it does not appear to me that any similar thought crossed your mind about possibly driving off IB, or myself, or any of a number of others and (2) you've managed to get me, for one, to the point where I really don't care. I'm pretty comfortable in saying that of the many people your are attacking here, pretty much all have made contributions to Commons that are at least comparable to your own, and I see no sign that has been even the slightest consideration for you. You have met all disagreement with attacks and accusations; why should you expect that now we'll want to placate you? - Jmabel ! talk 06:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
      Is this not you? You're telling the victim of plagiarism to "fix it themselves"? What is one to take from what except that you are okay with other users taking work and uploading it as their own? You also endorse TheImaCow's "every word" they had written, including apparently thinking that theft of work somehow involves warnings and discussion preceding remedial action to stop the behavior. If a user needs to be warned about stealing another user's work, there's not much to talk about IMO. As I originally wrote from the very beginning, there is little reason to believe this is the first time this user has done this, and it's far more likely I'm simply the first person to catch them doing it. The reported user has also ignored this entire discussion, despite being pointed to it on their talk page (both by a notice from me, and eventually a block), and has instead chosen to push the other issue (uploading of non-free content) by uploading PNG versions of the SVG images they originally stole after an administrator speedily deleted them as being non-free.
      "possibly driving off IB, or myself, or any of a number of others" A plagiarist and people defending plagiarism get driven off the project? Oh, the horrors. How would this project survive if there was nobody left to take credit for other people's work? /s "I see no sign that has been even the slightest consideration for you" Pardon me for not showing gratitude at having my work stolen so flagrantly. You're right, of course. @Illegitimate Barrister should be applauded for taking the work of someone else, downloading it to their local storage (I sure hope no bytes were harmed in the process, if there's a GoFundMe I can contribute to, let me know), then clicking on the "Upload" button so they can turn around and upload it here. Quite a lot of effort for them to make, I hope they can fully recover from this, but I know there's no amount of thanks we can provide to them that will ever make them whole again (oh, I almost forgot, they copy and pasted the file information I provided for the image when they did this as well). Perhaps a statue erected in their honor would be sufficient? Truly amazing work. "why should you expect that now we'll want to placate you?" The hope that at least some people here have a basic moral compass? Seeing another person's work taken and copied byte for byte without any attribution whatsoever should be disturbing, but apparently it's not. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Nothing has been plagiarized here. Again, I stand by my analogy to crediting the printer of a book. You can credit them, but you don't have to.
      • There has been no "theft". You are literally the only person who has commented here who thinks that has occurred.
      • "The reported user has also ignored this entire discussion" which frankly shows admirable restraint on their part. You made a false accusation, they ignored it and trusted the process. No one here, including you, has asked them any direct question, and they are not an admin. Why should they feel compelled to respond?
      Jmabel ! talk 19:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Their comment "The only people lacking competence is pretty much everyone here" made up my mind for me. They need to take a step back from this but don't seem willing to do that Gbawden (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I'm super glad to see you'd walk away if you were stolen from and "take a step back". Very easy to tell someone else to do something when you're not the victim here. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    For one last time, you were not stolen from. You copied (created a derivative) a logo that someone else created (it isn’t your own work, even if you recreated it as a vector). So enough of bludgeoning the process. Bidgee (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I've seen some people on here refuse to get the point before and I'm certainly not totally innocent in that area myself either but this has to be one of the worst examples of IDONTHEARTHAT in history. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Steven95m98

Steven95m98 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) seems to be here purely for exhibitionist purposes. Can an admin delete their uploads and give them a warning? Adamant1 (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Softbestreview

w:WP:NOTHERE. Only add files and pages and reuploads deleted such files. Jonteemil (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Blocked indef because of spamming. They have been warned 2 months ago. --Achim55 (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Prof. Dr. Md. Abdur Rouf

Master is blocked on enwiki that's why the sock was created. Master uploaded File:Prof. Abdur Rouf.png, which was deleted, and the sock reuploaded the file to File:Dr. Md. Abdur Rouf.png. Both usernames has Rouf in the name, seems like a duck. Jonteemil (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Sock blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Tihanh

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

Uploading a huge chunk (17) of copyrighted images. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned, files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Milk Daddy 235

Sockpuppetry. Overlap at File:Milk Daddy.jpg, see its log, and obvious similarities in the usernames. Jonteemil (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

MilkDaddy235 is not registered here, but files deleted for abuse of COM:WEBHOST. Yann (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
My bad, I missed the spaces in the master's username. I've corrected the heading and userlink.Jonteemil (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Sock blocked, oldest account warned. Yann (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

MZ123455

Sockpuppetry, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MZ123455/Archive. Jonteemil (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding IP 108.6.98.222 which seems to be the same person. Has been creating some categories edited by the master or socks.Jonteemil (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Socks blocked. This guy has a an article on English Wikipedia, so I didn't delete images uploaded by the main account. Yann (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Dariocorso1987

Reuploads bunch of deleted files of Special:Log/User:Viteritti. One can assume they're the same guy I guess but hard to be sure. Jonteemil (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Main account warned x 2. Yann (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

User Chin pin choo

Chin pin choo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  The user removed deletion tags and blanks talk page while uploading copyvios images. ~AntanO4task (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no copyright violations. @~AntanO4task has marked them copyvios without providing any evidences. Chin pin choo (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The deletion requests by AntonO seem nonsensical: Commons:Deletion requests/2024 Wayanad landslides. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Before make 'nonsensical' remarks, you should know why I made such report here and you can tell removing deletion tag is 'nonsensical'. BTW, this is for user ignorance and you can discuss about copyvio issues in where I made discussion. --~AntanO4task (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
"A gallary" is not a valid reason to request deletion for a gallery in Wikimedia Commons. Similarly. requesting deletion of categories because they include only a gallery is not ok either. You do seem to be on some sort of a mission. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I made report on user's problem and you can see what are they. I am not interested on anyone's mission. ~AntanO4task (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@~AntanO4task believes File:Chowkhamba Peak During Rainy season.jpg is a screenshot.
Truth is if you click pic in zoomed out mode, it will give the same result. @~AntanO4task's personal opinion SHOULD NOT be the criterion of deletion. Chin pin choo (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
And can someone please explain, why can't I have gallery name 2024 Wayanad landslides? and why @~AntanO4task has marked it for deletion? Just because he didn't like it? Chin pin choo (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Categories "Category:Landslide_in_Kerala" and "Category:Landslide_in_India" were also marked for deletion.
can @~AntanO4task provide any rationale behind his request?? Hope, that's not his likings again. Chin pin choo (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
You have uploaded copyvio images and some already deleted and rest of them are need to be checked. You have removed deletion tags and blanking your talk page. You creates blank pages. Admin and other users can check. --~AntanO4task (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Please use internal links when referring to files and categories. Convenience links from the above:

Jmabel ! talk 21:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The categories were deleted because the correct categories are Category:Landslides in Kerala and Category:Landslides in India (both plural). - Jmabel ! talk 21:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chin pin choo: you are, of course, welcome to dispute it when someone marks your files for deletion. You are not welcome to simply revert them, and doing so again could get you blocked.

If the other user has started a deletion review, make your case there. If they've tagged it with some sort of speedy-deletion tag, you can always turn that into a full-blown deletion review and make your case there.

Let me know if anything about that is unclear. - Jmabel ! talk 22:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

And you absolutely should not remove the content of a gallery (2024 Wayanad landslides in this case) if you want to nominate it for deletion. You could remove the one deleted image referenced there, but start an honest discussion on the gallery content: don't blank it and then nominate it for deletion because it is blank. - Jmabel ! talk 22:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to sanction anyone here for what they did in the past. If there is something past that I've missed remarking on that someone thinks needs noting please provide a diff showing the user action in question. If there is an action after the time of this post (22:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)) that shows continued bad behavior, again please provide a relevant diff to show what was done and note that it happened after I have given this warning.

Section not exactly resolved, because the report was vague and I may not have spotted all of what it referred to, but User:Chin pin choo is warned about similar conduct going forward, and (going forward) User:~AntanO4task should understand that nothing here gives them a free license to be badly behaved, either. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Ahmedshoyebiqbal12

Has uploaded the same personal file two times after it has been deleted each time and now a third time even after Yann warned him that Commons is not your free personal web host. Jonteemil (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

user:Alisahib2001

Alisahib2001 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) new set of non-free logos uploaded as own works after multiple watnings and 1 week block. Quick1984 (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month, obvious copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

KeralaSportsEditor

Sock of Bobanfasil recreating File:Real Malabar FC Logo.png for the billionth time. The admin who blocks may also delete and protect the file for recreation. Jonteemil (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done User blocked, file deleted. I am not sure protecting it is useful. It may be recreated under another name. Yann (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

User talk:RafelCRD

User talk:RafelCRD uploads possible copyvios, and bad files despite warnings and block. check: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_RafelCRD modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 18:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months, all obvious copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Legendry3920

User talk:Legendry3920 uploads copyvios despite warnings and block. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 19:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Adefolarin1

Uploads File:HRM Ashley.jpg which is a copyvio, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Queen Ashley.jpg, after having been warned with {{End of copyvios}} the day prior. Jonteemil (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, file deleted. Yann (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I am currently facing a distressing situation that I believe poses a threat to the values that Wiki Loves Monuments and Wikimedia stand for. Specifically, I have received a cease and desist letter from an individual claiming to be the photographer of an image I used on a beta Facebook page. This image was sourced from the Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 collection and was used under the Creative Commons 4.0 International License, as outlined on your platform.

The image in question was uploaded by an alias, “melike2bee4Einstein,” (see below). It appears that the individual behind this alias (Jon Cornforth) is now using this image to initiate multiple lawsuits against unsuspecting users through what seems to be a "troll" attorney. This behavior, which appears to be a deliberate misuse of the system, is clearly not in the spirit of the Wikimedia community or the Wiki Loves Monuments initiative. It undermines the trust and creative freedom that your platform is designed to foster. See the image, below.

I am reaching out to request your assistance in uncovering the real identity of the individual who uploaded this image. This information is crucial for us to address the lawsuit we are currently facing and to ensure that this kind of exploitative practice is stopped before it can harm others in the community.

The Creative Commons license states that in cases where legal issues arise, such as copyright disputes, it is possible to request Wikimedia Foundation disclose the identity of the user. I am presenting a compelling legal reason for disclosure and I am seeking your help.

Thank you.

Karlynn Keyes 68.227.80.227 20:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Which image(s)? File:American Samoa Beach Sea Harbor Snorkling.jpg ? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The image in question is File:American Samoa Beach Sea Harbor Snorkling.jpg It is a cropped version of this image which is copyright Jon Cornforth. The uploader is very unlikely to have been Jon Cornforth. The image predates the 1 April 2017 date given by the uploader, who has uploaded nothing else. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Karlynn Keyes: just to be clear, am I correct that in the Facebook post in question you credited the image accurately to the best of your knowledge and conformed to the license that you believed to be accurate for the image in question? If so, there is probably no court of law that would grant someone damages against you. I'm not a lawyer, but just on a common-sense basis, I'd contact Mr. Cornforth, explain the situation, and ask whether he'd prefer that you credit him, or take the image down, since at this point that is all you can do.
I doubt that Commons or WMF will actively seek to work out who was behind a "hit-and-run" account like this (especially because it is almost impossible to determine such a thing) but I will certainly delete the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 22:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@Counterfeit Purses: I just looked. It is not a cropped version of that particular photo, but it sure does look likely it came from the same photo session.
Karlynn, because it is not absolutely cut-and-dried that Jon Cornforth took the image that is on Commons, I need to start a deletion review discussion rather then just delete unilaterally. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel Ah. You're right. Here is another very similar shot. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@Counterfeit Purses: yes. I started a DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:American Samoa Beach Sea Harbor Snorkling.jpg. I see you already commented there; mentioning it here for the benefit of others. - Jmabel ! talk 22:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for your prompt action regarding this image. It is important to protect the entire creative community and I did not want anyone else to fall victim to cease & desist demands and threats of copyright infringement from this photographer and his attorney. This image had been featured on Wiki Loves Monuments for the past 7 years and was freely available under the Creative Commons license. The photographer never contacted Wiki to claim it was uploaded without his knowledge or consent. Instead, he chose to leave this image on Wiki for years, while having his lawyer send out threatening emails demanding payment for alleged copyright infringement. This predatory behavior threatens the spirt of Wiki Loves Monuments and the entire creative community. I reached out to the photographer the moment I received notice and I have received no response; only threats from his attorney. This image was featured on a beta Facebook page for a start-up that never launched. We immediately acknowledged a simple lack of attribution (which I promptly corrected by removing the image). Small businesses and the creative community are being crushed by copyright trolls and this is a $30 billion a year industry that everyone needs to be aware of. We all need to speak out to support Wiki Loves Monuments, Wikimedia and Wikipedia and the great work you do to share images and knowledge with the world. Copryrighttroll (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Could you please clarify a few things for us:
  • Are you the OP in this thread?
  • Have you encountered this particular photographer / image as a problem before this?
  • If so, did you raise it here previously? What happened?
IANAL. That said, I would advise the OP here to cease and desist, as requested. If the image is copyrighted, there is little else they can do. That done, the photographer here would seem to have a strong case against the uploader of this image. But a case against anyone who has used this image in good faith, on the basis of the claimed licence, and ceased to do so on request. That's a whole different story. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello Andy, I recently brought this issue to the attention of Wiki Loves Monuments. I had not heard of this photographer, nor did I recall this image before this incident. I was slapped with a cease and desist and accused of copyright infringement with demands for payment, for featuring this Wiki image, in good faith, on a 6 year old non-commercial Facebook page that had no visibility whatsoever. Upon notice, I immediately removed the image and apologized to the photographer and the attorney. I then told the attorney that this image was sourced from Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 and it had been freely available under the Creative Commons license for the past 7 years. According to the license, if there is an oversight of attribution and it is corrected in 30 days, all rights to use the image are restored. I immediately corrected the oversight of attribution by permanently removing the image from this old mock-up page. However, this attorney is now claiming that I could not prove that his client uploaded the image and that someone else must have uploaded it. He then stated that he had no idea the image was even featured on Wiki Loves Monuments. That seems highly implausible since Googling the image immediately brings up the image and the Wiki link. If this photographer did not upload this image, he and/or his attorney should have notified Wiki Loves Monuments years ago and requested its removal, rather than going after a Wiki user who featured the image in good faith under a CC license. After a bit of online research, it appears that there are multiple lawsuits of record for this photographer. I have no idea if other Wiki users who featured this image in good faith over many years may have received similar cease & desist and copyright infringement accusations. Wiki Loves Monuments and the creative community thrive because of a commitment to share images and knowledge and to operate in good faith under Creative Commons licenses. We all need to work diligently to ensure that these ideals are upheld. 68.227.80.227 17:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
@Copryrighttroll You keep calling people "copyright trolls" but this seems to be a case of a photographer asserting his legitimate rights to the image. You infringed his copyright. You didn't do it knowingly, but you did it. You can blame the person who uploaded that image here (or you can blame Commons for allowing so much copyrighted material to be uploaded), but the photographer is the victim here. Their work was stolen. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello. My company and I have great respect for copyrights and trademarks. This situation involves an image that was featured on Wiki Loves Monuments for over 7 years under a Creative Commons license. This image was easily found on Wiki through a simple Google search. Note that in over 7 years, the photographer never contacted Wiki Loves Monuments to file a complaint or to protest the alias uploader, "Mewant2bee4einstein" and he never sought to have the image removed. This allowed for the continued use of this image for years, as the Wiki community shared this image in good faith under the CC license. This photographers efforts should have been directed to removing this image immediately from Wiki Loves Monuments, rather than making accusations and demands of people who have featured this image according to the CC license. 68.227.80.227 18:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
To the original (IP) poster: Please read what I wrote above. I am an admin, and was responding to you as such. Unless there is some specific administrative action you are requesting, there is nothing further here to discuss. - Jmabel ! talk 18:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I would welcome any other admin to close Commons:Deletion requests/File:American Samoa Beach Sea Harbor Snorkling.jpg as a speedy delete; I know some people have objected to admins closing their own DRs that way unless the uploader consents, and of course in this case we will almost certainly not hear from the uploader. - Jmabel ! talk 23:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Please let me clarify that I am in no way suggesting that Mr. Cornforth, "took the image that is on Commons," per the reply, above. As I stated, this image had been featured on Wiki Loves Monuments for the past 7 years. Mr. Cornforth (the photographer) and his attorney never contacted Wiki Loves Monuments to claim that this image was posted without his knowledge or consent and they never took action to have the image removed. Thank you for taking swift action to remove this image to prevent anyone or any other small business from potential threats and litigation by this photographer. Copryrighttroll (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Uarnoldmd

Has reuploaded the same file three times after it has been deleted each time, also completely disregarding the {{Dont recreate}} tag put on the user talk page in April. Jonteemil (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Re @The Squirrel Conspiracy: The file was now undeleted and VRT permission added, so the block can probably be shortened. But the user did however violate {{Dont reupload}} twice so I still think they should be blocked, but 6 months feels exaggerated. Jonteemil (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Reblocked for a week. Yann (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

AhmedGedi

Likely a sockpuppet of Somali Editor, see User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files. Jonteemil (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

R. Gopakumar using multiple accounts

R. Gopakumar is swapping between two different global accounts when self-promoting his digital art on Wikipedia projects. Perhaps it's so that a cursory check of any given edit makes it look as if they were simply adding a pre-existing Commons file to Wikipedia: User:Gopakumar R.P. uploaded File:Mona Lisa 2024.jpg a few days ago so that User:Editani could add it to the enwiki article on Digital art later that day - which resulted in a 72 hour block for Editani on enwiki for self promotion, and no block or warning for Gopakumar R.P.

Editani's Commons talk page is full of comments where they say that they are R. Gopakumar, and they were asked at the help desk in March why they needed to use multiple accounts, but did not answer. Belbury (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Also seeing some older accounts:
Belbury (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
(Editani has now been indef blocked on enwiki for evading the still-active block against Gopanraman. But there's no block evasion happening that I can see on Commons.) Belbury (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done All socks blocked. This guy has an article in 2 Wikipedia, but I am not sure he really meets the notability criteria. Yann (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Sock accounts are now globally locked. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Elnur Neciyev

User talk:Elnur Neciyev adds copyvios despite last warning. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Adamant1 (15 August 2024)

  • Enhancing999, COM:AGF is a policy. Calling Adamant1's changes "headline vandalism" from the start is clearly assuming bad faith. You also don't have to give a "final warning" right from the start. Just discuss the changes
  • Adamant1, don't immediately re-revert your changes back on sight. Also calling someone's title "obtuse and nonsensical" is just adding fuel to the fire. Also for future references, you can also ask for permission from the proposer before changing the title. Also please read Jmabel's advice to "tread more lightly" since your presence on this noticeboard is quickly becoming as certain as death or taxes.

No administrator action is necessary now at least. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 09:24, 16 August 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.

Adamant1 (talk · contribs) attempts to manipulate a discussion by changing the initial proposal at [2]. This despite a reversal, a request to fix it and a warning [3], they persist.

Last block was just a month away and lasted 2 weeks. Apparently, the user has become again a topic here. I doubt this goes anywhere positive. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Read Enhancing999's talk page. All I did was shorten the title to what it was in the original Village Pump discussion because it didn't make sense and misrepresented what was originally being requested. That's not an attempt to manipulate anything. Actually it's the exact opposite. I'll also point out that I told Enhancing999 on his talk page that he was free to change it if he wanted to. So I have no clue what he's talking about or why he thinks filing this was the way to resolve this instead of just making the title clearer and fixing the horrible grammar. Apparently he can't be bothered to rewrite a few words on his own proposal so it's easier to read and I should be blocked just for asking. Go figure. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Either it's nonsensical or you didn't agree with it or it misrepresented or bad English .., maybe you should make up your mind.
We don't need your approval to formulate proposals on this website or be editwarred over until formulation are to your likening. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
It was both nonsensical and bad English. They aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not sure what your referring to with your last sentence. I didn't say anyone needed my approval for anything. All I did was rewrite the title to what it was in the Village Pump discussion because yours didn't make sense and had a bunch grammatical issues. Which as far as I know people are allowed to do. Reverting someone once isn't edit waring either. Otherwise your the one who edit wared me when you did the original revert. It's especially not edit waring on my end because I told you I didn't care if you rewrote it to get rid of the bad grammar. How exactly is that edit waring? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
You changed stating "I guess you won't mind if I change the title" and, after being reverted, you changed it again and came to my talk page about "edit warring". You are free to vote on any proposal and voice your opinion, but you can't really reformulate other people's proposal. I suggest you undo your repeated change and formulate your own proposal separately. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
How exactly did I change it? That's still what my comment in the proposal says "I guess you won't mind if I change the title to what it was in the Village Pump." Besides that your the one who told everyone to see the original discussion to know what the proposal was for and it was literally about adding a "Upload file" link for mobile. Novem Linguae confirmed as much in the proposal when they said "Changing the apps is not part of this proposal. Just the Minerva skin, which is the mobile browser skin." So how exactly did I "reformulate" the proposal by changing the title? If it's not about adding a "Upload file" link for mobile, cool. I'd say that's on you for acting like it was by telling everyone to read the previous discussion instead of explaining how your proposal and the one on the village pump are different. I don't think they actually are though. Your just being petty because I didn't jump to do what you wanted the second you asked me. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Adamant's "I guess you won't mind if I change the title" comment was actually on their second time of changing the heading, their guess was made after they'd already seen that Enhancing999 had reverted them once. This is not a great guess.
Changing the heading has broken an inbound section link from a comment by Enhancing999 on the main village pump, but it looks like Commons doesn't have a {{Thread retitled}} template to catch that. Changing a heading can also make a thread confusing when early comments refer indirectly to that heading, which they do in this case. Belbury (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Adamant's "I guess you won't mind if I change the title" comment was actually on their second time of changing the heading @Belbury: I just looked through the edit history and from what I can tell that seems to be the only time I changed the heading. Except when I reverted Enchancing999 after that because he claimed the edit was vandalism. Regardless, you can look at the proposal from my last comment before that one and it still has the original heading. So can you provide a diff for the first time I changed it if that wasn't the first time? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
By now Adamant1 should be aware of such issues. I wonder if it's not just another sign of a general competency issue.
Not that he is just opposing Commons having upload links for media, but at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:Images misdescribed as postcards, it was found that they created a category "images misdescribed as postcards". This can can seem reasonable, until you notice that Adamant1 themselves misdescribed the files as such. Even so, they editwarred with RZuo (talk · contribs) over the addition of the category to a file. Despite being aware of issue for months (raised by several independent contributors on their talk page), they didn't resolve it and pretexted being blocked (which was barely for 2 weeks). Enhancing999 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Even so, they editwarred with RZuo (talk · contribs) over the addition of the category to a file. No I didn't. I restored my original edit and then removed everything from "images misdescribed as postcards" including the file and had the category deleted. Which was exactly what I was asked to do. I told you in the CfD that there was no time frame on it though and that I had planned on dealing with it when I had the free time. I just couldn't because I was blocked. I dealt with it right after that though. So there's no issue here except for your unwillingness to assume good faith and accept that I dealt with when I was able to. Once again your just being petty because I didn't jump to do something the second someone asked me to. I think you need to take Jmabel's advice in the CfD and move on. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't even know how many seconds it is between April and August.
Another sign of the competency issue is the broken user talk page, check User_talk:Adamant1. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
It's been that way for awhile now and you seem to be only one who's had an issue with. So I think your the one competency issues here. It's not on me that you don't know how to edit a talk page with a little extra code in it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1: I see, you made an "I guess you won't mind" edit of the heading, had both the heading and comment reverted by the user who it turns out did very much mind, then decided to just restore the heading and "I guess you won't mind" comment again. Not the clearest way to handle that. Belbury (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I guess I could have made the comment and edited the heading in different changesets. It's hard to know what will trigger people on here sometimes though and it's not something I would personally care about if it were me. Enhancing999 clearly has their own issues though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
So if you write "I guess you won't mind" it's purely rhetoric and has nothing to do with your actual thinking? Enhancing999 (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
No, I really didn't think you'd mind. It certainly wasn't vandalism. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
So why haven't you undone it? Enhancing999 (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe in self-reverting an edit. If you disagree with the wording then your free to changed it to something better like I suggested on your talk page. I'd like to see the title be something that doesn't have the same issues as the original though. But I could really care less what it is beyond that. I'm not going to restore to it something that had multiple spelling errors and clearly didn't make sense just because you aren't willing to fix your own proposal though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
So if you I undo your change once more you will leave it that way? Enhancing999 (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I'll revert you if you just restore it to the original heading. I'll it however you write it if you actually fix the problems with it instead of just restoring the original version though. At least run it through a spell checker or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Can you do the spell checking for me? Enhancing999 (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Fine. Just restore it and I'll correct the spelling later when I have the time. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
No, provide the checked version here and if I'm ok with it, I will update it. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
This would be my preferred version "Proposal: Add missing upload link in some skins for mobile devices", the slashes with multiple options is super obtuse. I'm not a big fan of "some" either, but whatever. It's still clearer then the original version. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
This is a change of the prosposal and comparing with "Proposal: fix bug/feature of missing upload link in some skins/for some devices" I don't see any spelling that was fixed. Please indicate which word you believe is misspelled. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
It was more the grammer issues with the multiple back slashes and lack of clarity about what's actually being proposed. Anyway I've asked you multiple times now how exactly that wording changes the proposal and you've just ignored the question. The original Village Pump discussion was clearly about an upload link on mobile though and that seems to be what Phabricator ticket is about. Plus people can already upload files from computers. so what "devices" besides mobile are you refering to and is it a bug or a feature? Because it would be a lot clearer if you just picked one and said what devices your actually talking about instead of being needlessly vague and obtuse about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I prefer my wording of the proposal, if you want to express disagreement with it, you can do your own or oppose the proposal.
It's a clear competency issue if you pretext a "spelling" issue and than reword it. This is not acceptable in any edits you make here (and likely at Wikipedia): you should never confuse the two. It's like using "seconds" when you talk about months. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Maybe its in American English thing but to me at least colloquially spelling can include correcting bad grammer. Like if I'm spell checking a college paper it can and often does involve getting rid of pointless symbols like back slashes that don't belong in it. Regardless, your just repeating the same vague nonsense about how if I think the heading doesn't make any sense that I can start my own proposal. Your not answering my question though. What other "devices" besides mobile are there that don't support uploading files that your including in the proposal? Its your proposal. The least you could do is say what exactly it is your proposing instead of just treating me like I should just piss off and do my own if I don't understand exactly what your talking about. ---Adamant1 (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)-

We can discuss the proposal, the underlying issue or your conduct in regards to reversals with threats of more reverts when your rephrasing (called "spell checking") isn't accepted: each at it's place. AN/U is for the last. Enhancing999 (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

What threat? Your the one who asked me if I'd accept having the original version restored. Don't waste my time asking if your not going to give me the option next time. It's not like I haven't gone out of my way to try and find a reasonable middle ground between the original heading and my version. Your the one who's refusing to meet me half-way about it. I'm fine with any other wording then the original with the vague wording and slashes. That's it and I don't think it's that unreasonable. I don't really see this going anywhere if your just going to ignore my questions and/or refuse to change the wording though to make what your actually proposing clearer though. If anything I should propose a boomerang due to the endless obfuscating and false complaint. I'm done outside of that though. Feel free to get back to me when your willing to have an actual conversation about it. ---Adamant1 (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
You wrote "At least run it through a spell checker". I run you through your spell checker and you rephrased it. Enhancing999 (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
The outcome is that you write "spelling check" if you me change the proposal to your liking. You write "seconds" when you mean months. You write you had been blocked during that time, when you had been blocked for 2 weeks, and not 3 months. I think we should help you with that last point. Enhancing999 (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
And where did I say that the block was the only reason I hadn't dealt with it during that time? Not that I should have to explain myself, but I was also pretty sick from gallstones for the last six months. This isn't a job, shit happens in real life sometimes, and I'm not entitled to do things the second someone asks me to. You look at my editing history. It's been down even when I wasn't blocked. But hey, screw it if I was sick. I'll be sure to do this next time anyway instead of taking time to recover just so people like you don't throw a fucking tantrum about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
there have been reports in /Archive 114, /Archive 113, /Archive 112.
i suggest this be the final warning to this user. next time they edit in a way against commons policies / conventions / social etiquette... again, they should be blocked for 1 month upward. RZuo (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest just dropping this. I think Adamant1 is correct that the proposal was unclear as to scope, and not well-titled, but he should probably have just weighed in to say that instead of unilaterally trying to fix it. Adamant1: can I strongly suggest that given that you've rubbed a fair number of users the wrong way, you might try treading more lightly? You don't need to solve everything yourself. - Jmabel ! talk 05:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Clearly people on here are their own special kind of fragile. I apologize to @Enhancing999: if taking a break from editing due an illness and being blocked caused him that much distress. Obviously his need to not be rubbed the wrong way by other people taking time off when their sick was more important then my need to recover. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:39, 16 August 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.

Kac8505

Violates {{Dont recreate}}. Jonteemil (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. Yann warned the user. Taivo (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

ARABCREATOR7

ARABCREATOR7 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Uploading copyright violations after previous block. – Pbrks (t • c) 14:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hgjiiiif

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

Appears to me to be a single-purpose account to make clearly incorrect deletion nominations, mostly of images that have already been discussed and kept. From what I could tell on a quick assay, appears to be mostly historical and/or medical pictures showing naked underage males, usually with a one-word rationale "explicit". - Jmabel ! talk 18:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I see now that User:Achim55 already had made a 1-hour block of this account for this reason. If Achim55 or someone else wants to take on monitoring the account for future abuse, fine; otherwise I would suggest a much longer, probably indefinite, block. I see no positive contributions by this user. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I will add: I could even see Commons wishing to reconsider its policies around images like some of those nominated, but a bunch of miscellaneous DRs are absolutely not the way to discuss policy. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I reverted all edits and deleted the nonsense nomination pages. GPSLeo (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! The 1-hour block of ns file was intended as emergency brake and it appears to have stopped them. For the record: IP is 92.237.167.18 which edited previously. To me they looked like a crusader who didn't edit in bad faith, so I chose a short-time block. --Achim55 (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
File:Full-jns 1948 5 6 0541.fig001.jpg seems to be © Copyright 1944-2024 American Association of Neurological Surgeons. All rights reserved. No evidence of free license. --Geohakkeri (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked as VOA. IP blocked for 3 days as well. We don't need single-purpose accounts, and people with an agenda. Yann (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

B14plays55 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

I looked at recent uploads by User:B14plays55, and every one I looked at is a copyright violation. User:Belbury has left multiple warnings on their talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, files already deleted. Yann (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I deleted most of the files. Yann got the last one. They are much kinder than I am in terms of block length. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, this is the first block, and there wasn't any final warning before. Yann (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Futurelegenddd

w:WP:NOTHERE. See talk page, log and uploads. Was given last warning three days ago with no avail. Jonteemil (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month. Lets see if they get the message Gbawden (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

인케

User has been uploading files from Wikia incorrectly under CC0 after many deletion notices and {{End of copyvios}} warning. Though many of the files might be {{PD-Simple}} depending on the country (I've tagged the recent batch {{Wrong license}} pending review), it's a pain to investigate and review them all, and the user has not responded to any messages or DRs. Consigned (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, and thank you Taivo for reviewing/deleting many of the files. Consigned (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Kotidids

Keeps uploading copyvios after having a prior block for it recently. Jonteemil (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Romina Beltaine

Violates {{Dont recreate}} repeatedly. Jonteemil (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, file deleted. Yann (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Mohsen.ghezel

Uploads copyvio after final warning. Jonteemil (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Carla Maglio: Suplantación de identidad

Soy Carla Maglio, puedo probarlo con mi documento argentino, en caso de ser necesario. El autor de esta entrada: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio_Fern%C3%A1ndez_Baraibar creó un usuario con mi nombre, sin mi autorización, y subió material. Admitió haberlo hecho. Le pedí reiteradamente que lo eliminara, pero las páginas y el usuario siguen ahí. Aporto enlaces: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:ConCosciaenLalo.jpg https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:JulioFBaraibar.jpg Les ruego que eliminen el usuario "Carla Maglio", que usurpa mi identidad (y no se trata de una homónima) y toda asociación de mi nombre con material subido por ese usuario _fake_. Muchas gracias. Real Carla Maglio (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Real Carla Maglio: No podemos hacer nada sin su evidencia de identitad. Tiene que escribir aqui, el equipo de voluntaria le va a ayudar. Ymblanter (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Muchas gracias, acabo de hacerlo, aunque no se trata de un problema de derechos. Veremos... Real Carla Maglio (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Debería enviar al equipo mencionado por Ymblanter un correo electrónico con foto de su documento de identidad, y debe ser fácil para lograr que se suprima la cuenta usurpadora. - Jmabel ! talk 17:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Muchas gracias, acabo de escribirles, aunque no se trata de un problema de derechos. Veremos si pueden hacer algo. Real Carla Maglio (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Phatzb2

Violates {{Dont recreate}}. Jonteemil (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Kparizi

Violates {{Dont recreate}}. Jonteemil (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. I'll delete all his/her remaining uploads as different kind of copyvios. Taivo (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Accounts Jacob0790 and TommieKunst

Jacob0790 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
TommieKunst (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Deliberate copyvio uploading via the same fake Flickr accounts [4] and [5] - both Flickr accounts used by both Commons' ones. The same modus operandi: creation of fake metadata, including false author's name and false date of creation (e.g., File:Igor Avrunin discus throw.jpg, File:BorisKorchilov.jpg, File:JenniferAnneGordon.jpg, File:ABCherkasovPortrait.jpg, File:JimDukhovnyAtPresentation2022-10-19.jpg) - more than 20 files. Quick1984 (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked both indefinitely for license laundering and abusing multiple accounts. Taivo (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Fattyfrosh001

User talk:Fattyfrosh001 i believe we made enough warnings to him for uploading COM:SELFIE and advertisement images. block him pwease. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 18:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block, all uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Phanfone Vongfong 2014

May be early in reporting this account, however this users contributions have been entirely reverts to low resolution on inferior versions of tropical cyclone images. I have voiced my concern about unreasoned reverts on their talk page with no response and almost immediately returned to reverting images. I would also suggest checking for socks, with this account most likely linked to Mazum24 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information), though only because at least one image was reverted to a Mazum24 sock accounts edit. Supportstorm (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Socks : FYI

Chin pin choo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and TamilRoman (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  are socks and possibly SPGSec (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  too. Note: I don't notify at user talk page as it is confirmed sock. --AntanO 17:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I blocked TamilRoman. SPGSec has no edit here. Yann (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: FYI these are both socks of another account blocked on en.wiki, presumably created to edit around that block. See also User talk:Túrelio#Potential copyvio farm. CMD (talk) CMD (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done I blocked Chin pin choo and Makks2010 indef. One should check if other accounts from the farm exist on Commons. I will do that later unless someone else does it first. Yann (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I blocked all socks existing on Commons. Yann (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

SelfStarter2

SelfStarter2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

New account, nothing but highly POV edits to the area of Israel / Palestine and Islam generally. Not everything is vandalism, because some is removing stuff that was there before and even worse. But still, nothing good is going to come of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Will indef-block (though I leave the cleanup to someone else). This person would have to make a hell of a case why we should let them back on the site. - Jmabel ! talk 04:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
OK, fine for me. Yann (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
You may also want to block Gorrrillla5 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) for this edit, reverted by SelfStarter2. Yann (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
What I did was horrible and I regret it, it was wrong of me to do so. I will never do anything like that again, I apologise. 2A02:C7C:641A:D800:F097:EEC2:240C:BA80 16:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Again I apologise as I wasn't logged in for my previous response. I cannot stress enough how sorry I am for that edit, my emotions got the better of me and I promise it won't happen ever again. Gorrrillla5 (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Gorrrillla5: I'm inclined to take that last at face value, but do expect to be indef-blocked if you don't hold to it. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Mahdijjj1398

Uploads copyvios and reuploads already deleted copyvios under a new name. One block prior for copyvios. Jonteemil (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month, file deleted. Yann (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Paulnguyenun

User:Paulnguyenun seems to be a vandalism only account. They were already blocked for it once by @Túrelio: for the same thing. So I think an indef block is in order this time. Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Globally blocked Gbawden (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

KK Vishnoi

Violates {{No selfies}}. Jonteemil (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

 Comment This guy has an article about himself (en:KK Bishnoi), so the image may be in scope. Permission may be needed, as it is probably not a selfie. Unless the article is deleted, of course. Yann (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I've tagged the file with {{Npd}}. Jonteemil (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
The bigger issue is copyvio. I have warned the user and deleted one they took from Insta Gbawden (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
And he now violated {{Dont recreate}} at File:Krishan Kumar Vishnoi.jpg. Jonteemil (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jonteemil Vishnoi is in scope so he can upload a photo as long as its free. If we can show that this is a copyvio I will gladly block Gbawden (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
You yourself deleted it as copyvio before and now it has been reuploaded. See the log of the file. Jonteemil (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Not the same image. Same name, not the same image Gbawden (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I see. Jonteemil (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

(105 KB) Gllrmurgiles

✓ Done. Yann warned the user, all uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

sockpuppets of

one of the socks has already been tagged by Achim55 but not blocked. Jonteemil (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the first 2 for abusing multiple accounts. Will defer to Achim on the other Gbawden (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
On investigating, clearly sockpuppet, all 3 now blocked ✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Paulantoniou

Reuploads the same copyvio for like the fifth time, under a new name, and has been warned with {{End of copyvios}} yesterday. Jonteemil (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, file deleted. Yann (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Zabezt

Account entirely dedicated to making reverts on File:Somali Civil War (2009-present).svg. Adding failed verification citations, and removing citation needed templates. Ecrusized (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

False, I’ve done edits besides this map. Zabezt (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
You really think that? All I’ve been trying to do is remove your map because it’s plain wrong. And I’ve done way more than focus on 2 files. What do you think I was doing for the past month? Dedicate my whole day to try to delete your file? Get real. Zabezt (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

154.121.105.119

I'm trying to mark File:Herpestes ichneumon numidicus - Algeria.jpg for deletion but this IP keeps reverting me. I would assume the IP is the uploader Anes syh. Jonteemil (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked the IP for a week, and Anes syh indef. for socking. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Guy9t64e85034543-54309

The contributions of this user are probably copyright violations and/or useless for Commons, given the nonsense they've contributed on enwiki. However, I'm not confident enough to tag them for speedy deletion myself, since I'm blind and can't really use reverse image search tools. If some advanced users/admins could take a look, it would be appreciated. Thanks! Graham87 (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sharafueatha

Another obvious Bobanfasil sock. Jonteemil (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Ecrusized

This user made a map file for the Somali Civil War because the other ones didn’t cite any sources, when I found a source for one of the other maps (which was better because it was sourced from a website meanwhile Ecrusized’s map was sourced from Twitter.) I put the map back up on the Somali Civil War Article. He then went to the file I sourced, REMOVED my source, and replaced it with the map he made with the Twitter source, arguing that the file never had a source in the first place. And to top it all off, he’s not even defending his map in anyway way other than saying “none of the other ones have a source.” Zabezt (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zabezt: Stop this revenge request. You need to come to a consensus with other participants. This is essential, as Commons is by definition a collaborative project. Yann (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I’m trying to start a conversation now, but I highly doubt he’ll respond or care. Zabezt (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
This is a report with no diffs, and I'm certainly not going to look at all of someone's work and try to guess what edits might be problematic. If this is about File:Somali Civil War (2009-present).svg, I've added it to my watchlist and will be keeping an eye on the talk page. Please do see my first question there, trying to sort out even the intent of the map. I see nothing here calling for admin action beyond my trying to keep future discussion on track and to make appropriate edits on behalf of someone who cannot edit the file. - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Radhy365

Reuploads copyvio after been given {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Andjikala

Reuploads copyvio after been given {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Betulalenta007

Violates {{Dont recreate}}. Jonteemil (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I only see one potential case of recreate. A warning should suffice, something that you have done. I don't see a need to bring them here Gbawden (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
No, see log. First he recreated the file, whereupon I warned him with {{Dont recreate}}. Then he again reuploaded the same file after the warning. So there are two cases of recreation on the same file. Jonteemil (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done. Blocked for a week, the file is deleted. Taivo (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

KeralaFootballEdits

Another obvious Bobanfasil sock. Jonteemil (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, file deleted. I also semi-protected File:Real Malabar FC Logo.png. Yann (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Betulalenta007

Reuploads copyvio after been given {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, file deleted. Yann (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

پاسبان

Repeated {{No advertising}} violations. Jonteemil (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Also consider deleting and protecting File:Exilamer.jpg from recreation. Jonteemil (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Indef., spam only. Yann (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Indef blocked by Yann Gbawden (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
And now the account is globally locked. Taivo (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Laurenmarler

Violates {{Dont recreate}}. Jonteemil (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked for a week and the file deleted. Regards, Aafi (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

MalabariEditor

Another obvious Bobanfasil sock. Jonteemil (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Praphakorn

Reuploads copyvio after been given {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Csmegb a likely sock

Per an overlap in uploads with other socks in this sock drawer (such as Sleevachan), I'm inclined to believe that Csmegb is another account belonging to a paid employee of the Syro-Malabar Church. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed, blocked, and nuked. Эlcobbola talk 21:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Srbernadette

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done This user had some copyright issues in the past, but was responsive for fixing the mistakes. The errors have already been corrected. I think this is a productive user. We should assume good faith. Yann (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we assume these accounts are sock or meatpuppets given they all four have uploaded the same file and the usernames are so similar, at least the top two and the bottom two are very similar to each other? Only one of the accounts are blocked.

Timestamp File Uploader Deleted file Uploader
Aug 31 2024 11:26 AM File:Godrej Thanisandra.jpg Delete Google image search Godrejthanisa (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 2 edits) File:Adarsh savana.jpg (Und | Log) Godrejwhitefieldblr12 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Aug 31 2024 11:26 AM File:Godrej Thanisandra.jpg Delete Google image search Godrejthanisa (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 2 edits) File:Adarsh Euphoria.jpg (Und | Log) Adarsheuphoria (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Aug 31 2024 11:26 AM File:Godrej Thanisandra.jpg Delete Google image search Godrejthanisa (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 2 edits) File:Adarsh savana.jpg (Und | Log) Adarshsavanablr (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)

Jonteemil (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done All accounts blocked. Yann (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

FotoZaragoza2024 was blocked in eswiki because is sockpuppet of CarlosArrimadas, and here is very active and doing block evasion, @Elcobbola: Ezarateesteban 15:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Global locks requested. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Mollathevalor

Mollathevalor (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) recent copyvio immediately after receiving the 'last' warning - yet another upload of a previously deleted file. Quick1984 (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 1 month Ezarateesteban 17:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Camilonava

Camilonava (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has uploaded copyright violations despite being warned and having had a previous block --Ovruni (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Эlcobbola: FYI.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Moghal-meteopathy

Moghal-meteopathy (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has reuploaded a picture of a book similar to one deleted previously for copyvio. Pierre cb (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding mass-overwritten by User:氏子

The user constantly overwriting files since registered in 2019. There is a considerable amount of evidence that shows these files should not be overwritten with substantially different content. I've compiled a list of files that need to be split, and saved it in my computer. He overwrote over 500 files, including files already tagged {{Split}} or reported to COM:HMSR. But I've come to realize that my time and energy are limited; I simply can't do this work today. Before 3 hours I issue a warning to the user (see: this message), so I selected this report just to alert administrators to his future behaviour in order to prevent such edits from happening again.--125.230.83.144 18:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide samples you find problematic. I don't think File:紫色繡球花.jpg is.
For links: 氏子 (talk · contribs)
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Although I haven't had been through the contributions of the user but I did perform a split of on one of the files and it seems that overwriting was performed unnecessarily and it should not have happened at the first place. Regards, Aafi (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
File:蝦籠子.jpg is for example very significantly different from File:蝦籠子 1.jpg Regards, Aafi (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I went through some of the contributions, but didn't find much. File:銅漆金佛陀立像.jpg currently on COM:HMSR is problematic.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

ArielBZ

Reuploads a bunch of files already deleted as copyvios. Was given {{End of copyvios}} a few days ago. Jonteemil (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, files redeleted. Yann (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Socks

Per es:Categoría:Wikipedia:Títeres bloqueados de Caroca52 (Sockpuppets of Caroca52). Jonteemil (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked them all, deleted most of their uploads and created a sockpuppet category. Taivo (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Graywalls: See: Special:Contributions/Graywalls where the editor is reversing my restoration of the familytree function that acts as a navigation device between family members. The template is valid, there is no rule demanding that they be removed, the template is used in over 1,000 entries. Graywalls rationale is that Greghenderson2006 asked at Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2024/08#FamilyTree, about Graywalls deleting the tree function template and one editor gave their "humble opinion", which does not rise to community consensus. Graywalls appears to target entries by User:Greghenderson2006. I would like a warning to stop the removal and have Graywalls actually gain community consensus for their removal, or gain consensus for the template to be deleted from every entry. Ad hoc deletion created selection bias. This should have been discussed at Village Pump, not the Help Desk to gain community consensus. Again: one "humble opinion" is not community consensus for deleting a template from categories. RAN (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

There isn't community consensus in keeping it either. COM:HOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL are relevant here, because the discussion at en.wiki clearly suggests its someone hosting a family tree about their own extended family rather than something relevant to Wiki projects. Maybe I am not familiar with the differences between Wikipedia and here, but in this situation, does retention prevail? After 1RR, I try to discuss this on your talk page proof, but you immediately took the concern here, and did not even provide a talk page notice. Graywalls (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Please don't tell people that the answer is in the Bible, just read it. You need to give me a chapter and verse. You keep saying its all there in COM:HOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL, but you never quote the actual rule you are referring to. COM:HOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL talks about party pictures and porn. It does not mention the template that you keep deleting. Why do you keep bringing up English Wikipedia, this is Commons with its own rules. Ad hoc removal from ones you do not like is the wrong way to go, gain consensus to have the template deleted so it is removed from every category, not just the ones with your beef with User:Greghenderson2006. --RAN (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question @Graywalls How is having a family tree on Category:Jean-Baptiste Boisot a violation of COMːWEBHOST Gbawden (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    My understanding of it is that edits made specifically to spread out one's family tree to build a family tree on this platform is hosting and I felt there's no educational use in it. Graywalls (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  • If you were building a family tree on Commons I would consider that a case of NOTWEBHOST. In this case its use is valid. Following your logic we would disallow the family tree of Elizabeth II as NOTWEBHOST. Gbawden (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Gbawden: , personal family tree building is the way it appeared to me. You'll see that Greghenderson2006 created a category for himself, and has a category for each of his parents, extended family members. Basically, categories being used as profile pages for his family members. This is where I was getting how I believed it was being used in a "web hosting" way. I know Common isn't en.wiki, but this certainly is quite suggestive. Graywalls (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    For context link to en.wiki ANI and within that discussion, please take a second to see this So I think I understand Gbawden's perspective, however my application of COM:HOST is that when an editor builds a category page like it's a folder or a profile, then uploads pictures of themselves, their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and a category for each one of their own extended family members for obvious purpose of curating their personal family history, I do believe that's a valid application of "out of scope" and COM:HOST. They may not be "vacation photos" but when someone starts uploading photos of everyone in their family, their obituary notices, gravestone photos, then start building a category here for each one of them, is that still considered within scope of project? Graywalls (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I reverted most Graywalls's removals of information, and sent a warning. Hopefully, that will be enough. Yann (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Zaitei tochhawng

Obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done GPSLeo (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Perfect, shouldn't their files be deleted as well though, per DENY? Jonteemil (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I just created Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Aibawk. GPSLeo (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

ZaragozaFoto2024

Such as FotoZaragoza2024 obvious sock of Namest 2003. Jonteemil (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by Elcobbola. Yann (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

AlessioRO

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

Multiple copyvios, continues uploading after warnings. Gikü (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. Yes, source of last upload is Google Maps. One week block and I'll look his uploads. Taivo (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Praggan Saha

The latter is a sock of the former. Both are recently blocked on enwiki. Jonteemil (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked both and deleted last remaining upload. Taivo (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Tô Ngọc Khang

This user has already been blocked for a week for uploading numerous copyvio images of aircraft involved in accidents and their behavior doesn't seem to stop. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. One month block (second block). Taivo (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

MohsenT021

Reuploads copyvio after having been given {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I do however suspect that it's possible that this account was created as block evasion of Mohsen.ghezel which was blocked previously. See below.
Timestamp File Uploader Deleted file Uploader
Sep 04 2024 02:18 PM File:Khaledabadi.jpg Delete Google image search MohsenT021 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 19 edits) File:Khaledabadi.jpg (Und | Log) MohsenT021 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)
Sep 04 2024 02:18 PM File:Khaledabadi.jpg Delete Google image search MohsenT021 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 19 edits) File:محمدرضا خالدآبادی.jpg (Und | Log) Mohsen.ghezel (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Sep 04 2024 02:18 PM File:Khaledabadi.jpg Delete Google image search MohsenT021 (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 19 edits) File:محمدرضا خالدآبادی.jpg (Und | Log) Mohsen.ghezel (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Jonteemil (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Both accounts blocked indef. Yann (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Negerimusik

Uploads copyvio after having been given {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week. All contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Ajikeminiooon

Uploads copyvio after having been given {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week. All contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Mass reverts, edit waring, and refusal to get the point by User:Orijentolog

I've been going through and cleaning up categories for non-exiting WikiProjects for cities in Iran that were created by User:Orijentolog a few years ago. The categories clearly shouldn't exist since again, there there aren't Wikiproject's that necessitate the need for the categories to begin with Orijentolog subsequently reverted me over 300 times and is continuing to do so even though I told them on their talk page that there's absolutely zero reason to have the categories. Can an admin step in please and tell them to knock off it and that they shouldn't be making categories on here for non-exiting subjects? As a side to that they created a bunch of categories for "buildings by shape" that only contained a single category for towers, which I told them was wrong because "towers" aren't a shape. Apparently they didn't get the point there. So it would be good if they could be told not put categories for things into ones for shapes when the thing isn't a shape to begin with. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Only thing you're doing is DESTROYING the categorization and making mess. Nothing else. --Orijentolog (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I told you why the categories were wrong and should be deleted. It's not my issue that your unwilling to get the point or don't care about the rules. At least stop reverting me until it's dealt with. Mass reverting someone more then 300 times without even discussing the issue with them first is totally ridiculous. It's also not what the revert feature exists for. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
How can maintenance categories be wrong?! Where did you get such an idea? You saw very well that I opened all those categories, as well as that I'm part of a group which deals with Iran-related images. You did not contacted me or the Wikiproject, just started with hundreds of edits which produced an utter mess in many categories. And you're surprised for getting reverted? --Orijentolog (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Now their edit waring me over it. Can an admin just temporarily block them for edit waring and vandalism since they clearly aren't willing to get the point or resolve this in a collaborative way? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm reverting your vandalism and nothing more. Those categories stood for years and no one had an issue with them, until you come. I'm categorizing Iranian art & architecture for years here, and today you destroyed hundreds of them over a single night. And you ask that I get blocked? --Orijentolog (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
You reverted me multiple times on multiple files ncluding over 100 times after I opened this. 100% you should be blocked for editing waring and reverting me over 100 after I filed the complaints. Its clearly disruptive, uncollaborative behavior. You should have stopped once I filed the complaint and at least waited to continue it until other people weighed in. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive behavior is when you destroy something created by many years, based on subjective ideas. Perhaps you believe they are "great" but I find them as totally nonsensical. To repeat it once again, most of these categories are not intended for existing WikiProjects, but for separating huge WikiProject Iran by city, and they mostly serve as maintenance categories. Towers are buildings by shape for years and there's zero logic to change it. --Orijentolog (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive behavior is when you destroy something created by many years, based on subjective ideas Be my guest and tell me where exactly there's a "WikiProject Karaj" here or on any other Wikimedia project. There's no reason you can't find a better way to separate things in WikiProject Iran that doesn't involve mass creating categories for imaginary Wikiprojects.
most of these categories are not intended for existing WikiProjects I'm aware. Which is exactly why I nominated for them deletion. There's zero reason to have "Wikiproject X" categories for Wikprojects that don't exist.
Towers are buildings by shape for years and there's zero logic to change it. It totally makes sense to change it if "towers" isn't a shape. I don't care if it's been that way for years. It's clearly wrong and how long it's been that isn't a valid excuse to mass revert me or edit war me when I tried to correct things.
Please don't troll here, I said those categories are being used for separating huge WikiProject Iran, not for existing individual projects. They serve its purpose fine. And no, you did not "correct" anything, just making an utter mess all around. I don't care ... it's clearly wrong - again subjective opinions. Towers are defined as narrow buildings or structures, higher than its width. That's related to shape, i.e. the external form, contours, or outline, not necessary to geometric figures. --Orijentolog (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Towers are defined as narrow buildings or structures, higher than its width. That's related to shape I agree that something like the word "narrow" is related to shapes. But "narrow" isn't a shape. If your going to put a category in one for categories "by shape" then that's what it should be. If you want to create a category called "square towers" that contains categories for or images of squares towers and put it in a category for "buildings by shape" then cool. Do that, but you can't just put a category for a random tower in "buildings by shape" and then be like "oh whatever. It's totally fine because the towers are narrow and the word 'narrow' kinda sorta maybe relates to shapes. So whatever! Waahhh your just trolling and making a mess!" That's not how this works. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I protected Category:Towers in Iran for 2 weeks, and I blocked 5.112.70.121 for a week. Yann (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

6042*UB80*2K36*1890*7269*9WBK/Asharujayne

Both accounts, created last August, uploaded photos about Japanese animator Shikei Shokatsu that seems to be a copyright violation. 1.33.123.150 06:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

So far only warning and short block, but if sockpuppetry is confirmed, then longer blocks are needed. Taivo (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry confirmed. Thank you. But here comes suspected third account...

Asharujayne uploaded File:Shikei Syokatu Portrait 2024 14.jpg, then deleted, then 諸葛子敬 uploaded same file as File:諸葛子敬近影2.jpg, then deleted, then Asharujayne uploaded same file as File:Shikei Syokatu-2.jpg, then deleted. Username 諸葛子敬 means exactly Shikei Shokatsu. 1.33.123.150 22:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

And here come fourth and fifth accounts: 北京人文大学 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information), Bujiwaiokma (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) 1.33.123.150 03:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Sixth account appears: Jenifadosaga (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) 1.33.123.150 03:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the real name registered account, please check.The previous error has been corrected, so sorry!! It is now operated by professionals. Jenifadosaga (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
In addition, the previous account was stolen again, and now it has been recovered through Google account and changed the password. Jenifadosaga (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

M-ONE GRAND MUAYTHAI

Uploads copyvios after having been given {{End of copyvios}}. Also I think Prathan-Worramanin is a block evasion account since master is blocked on thwiki. Both accounts uploads Muay Thai related media and also there is one account of reupload by the newer account of a file by the master account that was deleted as copyvio. Jonteemil (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked the master for a week, and the sock indef. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Kutlwano Maboe (Steak)

Promo-only account and sockpuppetry. Jonteemil (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Both accounts blocked indef. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Raaz Tiger

Violates {{No selfies}}. Jonteemil (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, file deleted. No useful contribution anywhere. Yann (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Romanmalikkhan

AriyanDnath

Promo-only account. Jonteemil (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. Yann warned the user and I deleted his uploads. Taivo (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Ayratayrat

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Jeremy.toma

Hi, I think Jeremy.toma's behavior should be looked at more closely. He's been told countless times that his way of treating the licencing of his files is wrong. He's now asked for some of his files to be deleted because he's not happy with the way some people are using the files (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thoiry (Ain, France).jpg). Now he's adding notes on his images stating that he must be contacted for all reuse of his files, which is contrary to the licence under which he published the files (Special:Contributions/Jeremy.toma). I have come to the point that I fear he'll ask for every one of his files to be deleted at some point. As a lot of his files are used on Wikipedia, this creates a lot of problems. I have already asked him to reconsider his involvement in Commons since he's never made any effort to understand the licencing process of it all. I think it's time an administrator looks into this. Thanks, Espandero (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciated the user's uploads and think they are a great contribution to the project.
What's the recommended action to solve the user's attribution problem?
I notice some suggest that users who insist on being credited have their images compulsorily marked the attribution while Jeremy.Toma actively supported efforts to remove in-image credits, but now faces the problem of not being credited at all.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
"I would appreciate it if you let me know…", the wording on File:Thoiry (Ain, France).jpg, is fine. Same for «"veuillez me contacter» in an ImageNote, though an ImageNote is a very odd place to put it. Conversely, the deletion request has no merit. CC license are irrevocable.
If he would rather have a different attribution, then at User:Jeremy.toma/License, in {{Self}} he can set the "author" parameter to anything he likes. - Jmabel ! talk 12:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes he says "veuillez me contacter" but the condition on his user page clearly states that anybody who wishes to use his files needs to ask for his permission beforehand. This is not in line with the licencing. And I feel like putting this kind of messages in notes on the image is also contrary to the spirit of free licencing. And the fact that he wishes to erase some of his content because it is being reused elsewhere seems very telling to me. - Espandero (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Isn't the problem that some of the reusers don't credit him as required? I think a solution should be found to help the photographer with that.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
This user needs to be blocked. He threatened to take legal action against Wikipedia in the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cologny (GE).jpg thread:
"Si vous m'en empêchez, je serai contraint d'engager des poursuites contre Wikipédia"
I sincerely hope you don't tolerate such threats on this site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked indef. --A.Savin 07:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
That's an unfortunate turn of events, but apparently more likely to get image credits back on the images.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Fry72

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.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: it is really hard to read that solid block of link-filled prose. Would you mind if I reformat it as bullet points to make it easier to follow? I won't change any content. - Jmabel ! talk 12:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC) [now reformatted - Jmabel ! talk 12:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)]
@Jmabel: Please go ahead.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Reformatting done. Sorry I don't have the focus to follow this up further right now (traveling, and very tired), but at least that should help someone else follow this. - Jmabel ! talk 12:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: This particular instance aside since I haven't looked that much into it, but what causes incomplete deletion requests to in the first place? I ask becauase it seems wierd someone would or could intentionally do an incomplete deletion request even they wanted to since its just a matter of pushing a button. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Causes are mostly manual actions with defects by users who ignore the automatic Nominate for deletion or Nominate category for discussion tool in the Tools menu on the sidebar provided by the AjaxQuickDelete gadget per COM:DR#Starting requests and COM:CFD#Starting requests:
In CoffeeEngineer's case, the cause is the use of "{{No permission since|month=August|day=28|year=2024}}" as the reason.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

User:A.Savin

No admin action required, mostly as per GPSLeo. If anyone wants to open a thread on Charlesjsharp about issues mentioned by A.Savin and Wolverine XI, be my guest. Yann (talk) 09:33, 8 September 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.

This user has insulted me on this current FPC. He has accused me of slander and lies and suggested my posts are a matter for WMF Legal. I request that he is asked to apologise and be prohibited from commenting on any of my posts. I am happy, in return, to not comment on any of his posts. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Dieser Benutzer Charlesjsharp ist mal wieder sehr stark im Austeilen und zugleich sehr schwach im Einstecken... --A.Savin 18:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp Your comment on wildlife conservation regulation is wrong. If a bird is sitting directly next to publicly accessible path walking on the path and also stopping to make a photo is absolutely legal (at least in international and EU law). The species is also not internationally protected (I am not able to check the protection status in Sri Lanka) and rated with least concern by the IUCN. Please do not accuse people to violate the law without proper evidence. This is a formal warning.
@A.Savin Please do not make this a bigger problem as it is, you know that this is not a case for WMF legal. And please avoid comments like the one above they do not help to calm down the situation. GPSLeo (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
21:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC). Und seitdem weder Entschuldigung noch überhaupt irgendeine weitere Stellungnahme. Einfach "A.Savin hat den Artenschutz verletzt, Punkt!" Du findest sowas okay? Ich hätte das jetzt im Übrigen gar nicht mal ausgegraben, wäre da nicht wieder eine Behauptung, die der User mal wieder als Wahrheit in letzter Instanz zu verkaufen versuchte, die sich aber jetzt nachweislich im Nachhinein als falsch erwiesen hat und letztlich die Beteiligten dieser FPC zu Lachnummern gemacht hat. Und so geht das mit ihm seit Jahren schon. Natürlich reicht eine einzelne Aussage nicht für eine Beschwerde bei der WMF, wohl aber kontinuierliches toxisches Verhalten. Wobei ich mir trotzdem keine Illusionen mache. --A.Savin 20:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Ich habe eine Warnung ausgesprochen, wenn vergleichbares noch einmal passiert gibt es eine Sperre, im Zweifel direkt dauerhaft. Den Fall hier würde ich jetzt aber schließen. GPSLeo (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Back in 2021, after this libel, and after I explained why it's nothing but libel, Charlesjsharp had no further arguments left and didn't respond. Now the same here, even after GPSLeo's explanation. Now I would like to know: how is it possible that a user is not held accountable for such a severe accusation of a criminal offence towards a real-name account. Only because he contributed hundreds of Featured Pictures and due to this deserves some special treatment? But fact is: this kind of harassment is definitely a violation of the UCoC and subject to a long block at least. No admin has courage? --A.Savin 06:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd probably support a boomerang. At least in my experince admins tend not to saction people who open spurious ANU complaints though unless someone proposes it and there's a clear consensus to. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
He's referring to the accusation linked above, not this thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh, my bad. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
 Comment This conduct is typical of Charlesjsharp, who has a lengthy history of getting into arguments with many users over remarks like the ones above. He is quick to refer individuals to ANU for trivial issues while failing to see his own flaws. Sure, he may be a valuable contributor to the Wikimedia project, but he should really take more care when posting here. Accusations of legal malpractice are a serious matter that should not be made or taken lightly. I believe it's about time that this behavior is finally dealt with. Wolverine XI 08:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Accusing a user of slander/libel are accusations of legal malpractice. A serious matter that should not be made or taken lightly. A.Savin made his accusation of slander in 2021. I was perfectly entitled to oppose his image. I had nothing to apologise for. He has repeated the accusation above. Why does that not attract any criticism here? I agree I make many critical comments, certainly more than many users, and will stop making any comments at all at FPC/QI/VIC - good or bad. I will continue submitting my own nominations. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
It really depends on the situation. Any intentionally false statement about another person can be slanderous in intent, but that doesn't mean that all instances of slander or making a false statement about someone is automatically a legal issue. Otherwise I'd probably be spending most of time on here suing people lmao (the point in that joke in case you don't get it is that there's a lot of lying on here). --Adamant1 (talk) 09:25, 8 September 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.

User:Utan VCRSN19

Utan VCRSN19 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Some recent copyvios after multiple warnings, including the last one. See also: COM:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 114#User:Utan VCRSN19 and @Taivo: . Quick1984 (talk) 06:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block and I mass deleted all remaining uploads. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

CoffeeEngineer

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

I've fixed the "no reason" issue, and explained how to use VFC on their talk page. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
@Matrix: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Fiorinaio05

Violates {{Dont reupload}}. Jonteemil (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Can you also delete all the previously deleted files they uploaded? Jonteemil (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

all these uploads are copyright violation and fake license please delete all[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Bedivere (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Danteldlp

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done No uploads since August 22. No immediate admin action required. Regards, Aafi (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
@Aafi: The first section of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Danteldlp was decided in this edit on 28 August after the user vandalized it. I'm sorry, I assumed that when Omphalographer started the second section, that it was about new files. It turns out that the second section was about the rest of the files. So now, the user has no uploads left and can be considered NOTHERE.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Complaint about User:Adamant1

I would like to complain about the discussion, I had with this user. In his activities, he refers to an unrepresentative closed CFD, ignores my request to wait before a discussion could be held and deliberately wants to provoke me. I both disagree with the user's behavior as he disregards the guidelines. I have suggested a resumption of the previous discussion, it was ignored. It cannot be that a simple CFD of so few users contains the opinion of the global community from so many countries, this should have been discussed in the respective subcategories of the countries. I would now like to know how to behave correctly so that my opinion can be respected and discussed. --Cookroach (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

(Copying this from another discussion) If you had a legitimate compliant about a specific part of guidelines that I wasn't following, cool. I would have been (and still am) more then happy to do anything in the guidelines that I'm currently not doing. All you did was make a vague assertion that I wasn't following the guideline, accused me of being arrogant, and then reported me to ANU over a bunch of things that seem to have absolutely nothing to do with me what-so-ever. I said you could discuss this on the Village Pump if you thought it needed more discussion. But as both Pi.1415926535 and I have pointed out it was open for 4 years already and has been closed for 1 year since then. So I don't really think there's a reason to re-open it. Maybe some aspects of it can or should be worked out better. I have zero issue with that, but I don't think it justifies reporting me to ANU simply because you think the CfD didn't have enough participants at the time. That's not my problem. Nor is it my responsibility to re-open a CfD that I didn't participate in or close to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
However, as I have already written, you have ignored the guidelines to first look for a suitable alternative and to add a note in the subcategory. Moving everything to the category above and deleting the subcategory without asking is against the spirit of the CFD and against the community. And I only asked you to wait a little while before you do what you do until we have discussed it, which you ignored. Your behavior is definitely worth complaining about, as you wanted to provoke me further. If you don't know the difference between "history" and "historical images" in German usage, then I don't understand why you do it and didn't simply accept my offer of a discussion about it to find a suitable alternative. I can't imagine that the term "history" is used in the same way in all 100+ countries, so asking is a good alternative. A simple reference to the existing CFD would have been enough, instead of sledgehammering away at moving images and deleting categories.--Cookroach (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
to add a note in the subcategory. What sub-category here? I don't think it's necessary, practical, helpful, or even required to add a note to every single category that the images get up-merged to. As far as I know that only applies to the main category. Know one from what I've seen adds a note to every other random category that's slightly related to a CfD somehow.
Moving the category above and deleting the subcategory without asking is against the spirit of the CFD and against the community. Where did anyone in the CfD say random users had to be asked about it before phasing out the categories and who exactly should be consulted here when there's 39,000 categories involved in it? That was the point in the CfD to begin with anyway, but you'd have to admit it would be impossible to deal with this if there had to be separate discussions for all 39,000 individual categories before they were phased out. There's certainly nothing in the guidelines saying that's the requirement. There's already note about it on the talk of Category:Historical_images. That's enough. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The number of categories affected has absolutely nothing to do with the procedure or the guidelines, that a hint should not have been given beforehand. You cannot go through hundreds of country categories without giving a notice about the CFD. Nobody understands and wants that! If your work is so important to you, then talk to people instead of going over their heads, we are a community of volunteers with an interest in what we do. We don't want know-it-alls who keep explaining "their" world to us, but we have content-based projects to spread open knowledge in the world. Such actions and the way you carry them out prevent new users and alienate existing ones. Then you also have the wrong tone in the discussions, which is not what I'm used to here. So I'm asking you again polite in public to wait with your further activities until we have discussed it in our german-language community.--Cookroach (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Again, who should I have notified about it? It's a simple question. Why not just answer it instead of wasting my time with the condescending pablum? Just between you and me I told another user a few days ago that they should have notified people about it on the Village Pump or something after the CfD was closed. It's not my job to do that a year later as a random editor who's working on this as a side project on the weekend. Especially given that I wasn't involved in the CfD to begin with.
I have zero problem with notifying a few users here and there when I think it's necessary and I actually have been. I told you as much in the original conversation. I'm not going to hold off on editing in the area in general while you consult with the German-language community though. As I've said, your free to discuss it with other Germans, but whatever local consensus you decide on won't hold any weight if it goes against the outcome of the CfD. So your likely just going to be wasting your time. Be my guest and waste it but that has absolutely nothing to do with me or phasing out the categories in the meantime though. Like I've said, you talking to other people from the German community and the categories being phased out aren't mutually exclusive. Like I have any control over who talk to or what you talk to them about though lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Can't you or don't you want to understand? Not only are you violating the CFD you are referring to, you are also insulting an entire language community. So you are saying that a clear vote from several dozen long-standing Wikimedians would be worth less than the under-representative CFD you are referring to. We are not in an elite group where you can do whatever you want, but in a community of equals. There are deep abysses in your opinion. I don't think there is any point in trying to talk to you sensibly. I am therefore maintaining my complaint and expect a neutral vote from an admin who was not involved in the CFD.--Cookroach (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
you are saying that a clear vote from several dozen long-standing Wikimedians would be worth less than the under-representative CFD Yes, because that's been my experience. In general small, local groups can't go their own way and ignore the outcome of a project wide CfD. Otherwise there'd really be no point in doing them, having things like The Universality Principle, or really guidelines in general. Again, that's just what I've seen. Maybe an admin can give their opinion about it though.
We are not in an elite group where you can do whatever you want Sure, that's exactly my point about why I don't think a local consensus would override the project wide consensus. Your the one acting like German users are an elite who can do whatever they want here. I'm just saying that I think the outcome of the CfD should be followed, which is just common sense and totally reasonable. To the point that's weird your even attacking me over it. Apparently it's a big sin to you that have I respect for the process and consensus though. Anyway, that's really all I have to say about it for now. I would be interested to know what an admin thinks about your opinion that it's fine for you to ignore outcome of the CfD. But I'm done with my side of this outside of that. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Of course, you're now presenting it that way so that they're not to blame. But they are definitely the cause of the discussion here. If they had complied with my request to wait, it wouldn't have come to this. And yes, they are not behaving according to the rules, even if they would like to portray it the other way round. The CFD clearly states no category deletion without a sensible alternative - you have done that! The rules say to give a note to the users of the category - you have not done that and do not want to do it in the future. So you have clearly broken the rules. I just feel as part of the community and by no means elitist, but they automatically claim to be right and base this on an unrepresentative CFD that has not been fully discussed. No matter how long they keep copying my words because they don't have enough arguments of their own, I think their actions are wrong and against the community. I don't want to comment on the other things and your bad words, but there is a saying: "a hit by dog barks".--Cookroach (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The rules say to give a note to the users of the category - you have not done that and do not want to do it in the future. "I have zero problem with notifying a few users here and there when I think it's necessary and I actually have been. I told you as much in the original conversation." Shrug. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cookroach: I know this is about conduct but: the category in question (Category:Historical images of Zeitz) seems awfully vague. How old does such an image have to be to be "historical"? Why aren't they categorized more like Category:Zeitz in the 19th century, Category:Zeitz in the 1890s, etc.?

Adamant1's tone wasn't the greatest, but neither is the claim that you were excluded from a CfD that was literally left open for years before someone decided consensus had been reached. - Jmabel ! talk 12:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Jmabel Yes, you are unfortunately right, but I didn't know anything about the CFD and the process behind it beforehand. I would be happy if we could come to an agreement. I will make sure that we find a sensible categorization within the German Commons community under the main category "History of...". I have only asked that the postponement be paused for the time being. That's all, but Adamant1 did not want to allow that and kept citing the closed CFD as an argument, which is why I consider his approach questionable in terms of the CFD. We are now at this point and I cannot allow this argument to be made and a very large active group within the Commons community to be denigrated. I therefore ask that you explain to the user: Adamant1 that he is not allowed to ignore the rules agreed in the CFD.
  • to make a reference to the CFD if he wants to make changes or deletions based on it
  • not to delete any subcategories "Historical images of ..." until another sensible subcategory has been found.
By the way, this has nothing to do with the German community, but would affect all countries where these changes are to be made.--Cookroach (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Two things.
  • 1. I've asked you multiple times where I'm supposed to reference the CfD or who I'm suppose to reference it to. You never answered me though.
  • 2. I'm not going to relitigate every edit I've made to a "historical images" category, but I do find sensible subcategories in some cases. In other cases there isn't one and "history of" is perfectly fine temporarily until something better comes along. With the "historical images" categories specifically related to Germany, you immediately reverted me and demanded that I stop what I was doing. So that wasn't any way I could have put the images in sensible subcategories if I wanted to. I'm sorry I didn't do something you where actively getting in the way of and yelling at me not to do though. My bad for listening to you and stopping I guess. As a side to that, I'm perfectly fine with ReneeWrites suggestion. I was actually planning on doing something similar thing Cookroach demanded I stop what I was doing so they could throw a fit about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like to subcategorize these images by time period (by year for a few images, by century for others) as well as create a broader subcategory for black-and-white photographs of Zeitz. There are a few images of an engraving from 1650 that could probably be given its own subcategory as well. Would that work as a compromise? ReneeWrites (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello ReneeWrites Thank you for thinking about it, but this is not about the few pictures of Zeitz. Your suggestion is a feasible option. No, here this is about the way user:Adamant1 about it. He has ignored the rules of the CFD, which he is referring to. And said that my objection was irrelevant and that the entire German community with many thousands of images in these categories could do nothing about it. This is a defamation and denigration of years of voluntary work by several hundred users, which I cannot let stand. The objective solutions for the specific case in Zeitz are therefore secondary and we can discuss these on the discussion page there. We will certainly find a suitable solution there, similar to your suggestion. I would like to clarify one thing here: is a user entitled to refer to a CFD and disregard its agreed rules if this is pointed out to him? Can he interpret the rules for himself as he has done here - also without a note in the subcategory to be deleted and simply move the images to the respective parent category. If they answer yes, I am in favor of reopening the CFD with all the consequences. Otherwise, it would be enough for me, if the user: Adamant1 thought about how ignorant he was towards the community and acted after the rules as described above in the future.--Cookroach (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I have absolutely no clue what your talking about and it seems like you can't even give a single example of anything your claiming I'm doing or tell me what I should be doing instead. So the only issue I see here is the repeated false accusations and insults on your end. As I've said before, I'm more then willing to do anything differently if you can point out what the actual issue and how I should do it differently. Your not really giving me anything to worth by just going off about how I'm defaming and denigrating German users though and assuming good faith is a thing in meantime. So I'm more then willing to propose a boomerang if your not willing to say exactly what the problem is, how I can fix it, and lay off the insulting, accusatory tone. Otherwise I have absolutely no problem proposing a block for your needlessly combative tone and filling a clearly false ANU complaint. I much rather this just be dropped though since it's clearly just a time suck. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Dear Mr.Adamant1, I don't need to give you any examples, you've done enough of that yourself. You want to request a ban against me, please try! My crime is probably having an opinion and expressing it? You have not followed the rules that are clearly stated in the CFD: see Quote Pi.1415926535 "There was also clear consensus only to delete subcategories once they have been replaced by more suitable and less vague categories." If that's worth applying for a ban for you, then fine. I don't see any wrongdoing on my part other than not understanding the CFD process at the beginning. They now claim that they are open to factual arguments, but that's not true! It was only when I continued to discuss it here that they partially gave in. Two short examples:
  • Quote: "You can't just create your own way of doing things against the consensus or despite how categories are for other countries just because a couple of people in your little group agree with you about it." = Defamation and denigration; You assume that I want to go my own way and only represent a few opinions or think that I am better than others! But the exact opposite is the case, you do not represent the majority (insufficient participation in the CFD) and think that with this tailwind you can make the changes without giving any notice or looking for alternatives beforehand, as it says in the CFD.
  • Quote: "What I'm saying is that you can't create a local consensus to keep "historical images" categories based on a conversation with a few people in Germany against the broader one that the categories should be phased out." = repetitive and deliberate misrepresentation; It is suggested that I would want to violate principles and rules. My only request was to give me some time to discuss the topic with the community, which you do not want to comply with.--Cookroach (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
see Quote Pi.1415926535 "There was also clear consensus only to delete subcategories once they have been replaced by more suitable and less vague categories." And as I've told you multiple times I'm doing exactly that. Sometimes it's putting the images in categories by subject, by date, or just temporarily up-merging them to "history of" categories until something better comes along. But your accusation that I'm not following what Pi.1415926535 said in their closing comment is patently false. That's a large part of the problem here. You keep criticizing for me things that either aren't issue or that I'm not doing to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)


Proposal for boomerang

Cookroach has made many insulting comments and false accusations towards me in the course of this whole thing. They also filed an ANU that is clearly totally baseless. Just to give a few examples of the many that are out there:

1. "You are acting arrogantly against the ideas and spirit of the community."

2. "He moves pictures and deletes categories without setting a note according to the guidelines and looking for suitable subcategories or discussing this first." (I've said several times now that I've discussed it other users and find suitable subcategories for the images)

3. "Be careful they aren't getting personal again and don't have their tongue under control."

4. "Do you now want to forbid me from expressing my opinion or discussing it with others?" (I told Cookroach multiple times that I had no issue what-so-ever with them discussing it on the village pump and asked them to clarify things multiple times.)

5. "He ignores my request to wait before a discussion could be held and deliberately wants to provoke me." (see number 4. Also, I haven't edited anything related to this since the conversation started)

6. "You have ignored the guidelines to first look for a suitable alternative and to add a note in the subcategory." (see number 2)

7. "We don't want know-it-alls who keep explaining "their" world to us." (Nowhere have I said I know everything about this or tried to "explain my world view" to anyone)

8. "you are also insulting an entire language community. So you are saying that a clear vote from several dozen long-standing Wikimedians would be worth less than the under-representative CFD you are referring to." (Nowhere have I "insulted an entire language community or said anyone's vote is worth less then the vote of anyone else)

9. "There is a saying: "a hit by dog barks" (I'm not a dog and I really don't appreciate being compared to one)

10. "Adamant1 said that my objection was irrelevant and that the entire German community with many thousands of images in these categories could do nothing about it. This is a defamation and denigration of years of voluntary work by several hundred users." (See number 4. nowhere did I say his or anyone else objections were irrelevant)

11. "if the user: Adamant1 thought about how ignorant he was towards the community and acted after the rules as described above in the future."

12. "They responded to a comment in the ANU complaint by again claiming it was "Defamation and denigration." (Both are serious accusations that shouldn't be made without actual evidence)

There's also this ANU complaint. Which is clearly totally baseless. Regardless, the repeated insults, false accusations, and their general bad attitude about this goes against the principle of assuming good faith and shows they have no ability what-so-ever to work with other users in a collaborative way. So they should either be blocked or at least receive a warning. Personally, I find the repeated claims that I'm ignorant and somehow defaming or denigrating users simply for giving my opinion to be particularly egregious and against the rules. At a bare minimum he should be told that those types of comments aren't acceptable. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with Adamant1 here. This CfD had been open for 42 months when I closed it, with no comments in 4 months, and had a higher-than-average level of participation. There was a clear consensus to depreciate and delete "historical images" categories, and the arguments for deletion indicated that there were fundamental flaws with that category structure. I absolutely stand by my close. This kerfuffle seems to be a small number of users who are unhappy with the result of the CfD trying to overturn it by repeating their previous arguments and demanding a special process.
I find the behavior of Cookroach and DenghiùComm in the discussion to be highly inappropriate. They have both engaged in unsubstantiated accusations and personal attacks, some of which are documented above. The complaint against Adamant1 should be closed, as no action is needed there. If there is a need to discuss the particulars of depreciating these categories, it can be done without personal attacks or refusal to accept the CfD result. If Cookroach and DenghiùComm continue their inappropriate behavior, admin action may be needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
As I told Cookroach in another discussion I've talked to multiple people who created some of the "historical images" categories as part of phasing them out over the last couple of weeks. No one has had an issue with the CfD or me deleting the categories, except for Cookroach and DenghiùComm. There certainly doesn't appear to be any support for rehashing it. Although a few people did say it would have been nice if the outcome of the CfD was announced on the Village Pump after the it was closed, but I don't think that means it's worth re-doing the whole thing. Maybe that's something to think about for the next time a CfD is closed in a way that has such wide ranging consequences though. But I think that's the only legitimate complaint Cookroach or DenghiùComm can make about this and it certainly doesn't warrant how their acting. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
After careful consideration, I have decided not to insist and to withdraw my complaint. I also admit that my choice of words was not the best and I apologise for that. But Mr.Adamant1 should also be a little more diplomatic in his choice of words. However, I saw no other means of challenging what I considered to be the wrong course of action, as the people involved did not give me any proper information. I will keep a watchful eye in future when new CFDs come into circulation. However, I insist that the images be moved only from the Category: "Historical Images of ...", when suitable new subcategories have been found, as it stated in the CFD. For me, that would be the end of the matter.--Cookroach (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

FWIW: I would agree that the "Historical images" category is (barely) better than nothing. I wouldn't go just throwing it away, but I would treat it more like a maintenance category saying, "these images need some decent categorization instead of this catch-all." Pinging @Adamant1 in case he isn't following every edit here.

But there is no admin issue involved. - Jmabel ! talk 07:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. Although at least IMO "history of" isn't better. It's just a more accepted version of the same thing. So I see nothing wrong with shuffling images from one bad category to another equally bad one if it at least means there isn't pointless duplication. It's not like I am doing that to begin with though. I had fully intended to move images into more appropriate categories from "history of" before Cookroach got involved and I had actually done that in a couple of instances. So your not telling me something I don't already know or hadn't planned on accounting for. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

please delete upoads of this user and block the account.

Kazemi1991 is Sockpuppet of Yousef kazemi

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Kazemi indefinitely and deleted both his uploads as obvious copyvios. Taivo (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

A1Cafel

Closed as per Gbawden.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yann (talk • contribs) 17:13, 9 September 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.

A1Cafel is a long term problem user on Commons. Since his last indefinite ban he is continuing to mass intentional upload of derivative works and flickr washing (while being the fan of derivative works-related deletion requests). Uploads are mostly useless. Also he is continuing to upload duplicates, troll users, creating meaningless deletion requests and more (see his talk page). In regard to his problematic uploads the user has strongly defensive position. The behaviour of the user is very toxic. Such actions discreditate Commons, wasting other user's time and cause work to other users almost impossible here. I think infinite block is actual here. Ping other involved users: @Mdaniels5757, Yann, Ooligan, Strakhov, RodRabelo7, Wilfredor, Hubertl, and Jeff G.: 195.55.120.220 14:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose - If an IP user has a complaint they should come out the shadows and use a registered account Gbawden (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Please provide examples (diffs). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 9 September 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.

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

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)

✓ 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)
The image is back at File:Stefanov120524.jpg. See also comments at [6] and [7]. C F A 💬 00:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
@CFA, deleted the file and issued a final warning. Regards, Aafi (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done blocked Kalinators, for obviously NOTHERE. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
... And they're back again as Greatpig923. File is back as File:Sportspeople1.png. C F A 💬 02:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Accounts now globally locked. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

109.178.170.151

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)

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

Sultan fahad alshahrani

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

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

Khodjiyev Maruf Makhmudjonovich

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

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)
✓ Done Sock blocked, master account warned. Some files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

My potential future block

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)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_115&oldid=925680585"