Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems
Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports | |||
---|---|---|---|
Vandalism [ ] |
User problems [ ] |
Blocks and protections [ ] |
Other [ ] |
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
|
Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
|
Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
|
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS. |
Archives | |||
115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 |
96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
| ||
Note
- Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
- Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
- Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (
~~~~
), which translates into a signature and a time stamp. - Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s).
{{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~
is available for this. - It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
- Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
Illegitimate Barrister
[edit]
Steven95m98
[edit]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
[edit]- Softbestreview (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
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
[edit]- Prof. Dr. Md. Abdur Rouf (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
- Rouf146 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
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
[edit]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
[edit]- Milk Daddy 235 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
- MilkDaddy321 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
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)
- 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)
MZ123455
[edit]- MZ123455 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
- تنظيم إمام (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
- نظام إقرأ (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
- 108.6.98.222 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
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
[edit]- Dariocorso1987 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
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
[edit]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)
- "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)
- @~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)
- 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)
- 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:
- File:Chowkhamba Peak During Rainy season.jpg, Category:Landslide in Kerala, Category:Landslide in India.
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)
Copyright Issue
[edit]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)
- 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)
- Could you please clarify a few things for us:
- @Jmabel Ah. You're right. Here is another very similar shot. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:42, 13 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)
Ahmedshoyebiqbal12
[edit]- Ahmedshoyebiqbal12 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
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)
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)
R. Gopakumar using multiple accounts
[edit]- Gopakumar R.P. (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
- Editani (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
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:
- Gopanraman (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) , indef blocked on enwiki in 2013
- Gopakumar r (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
- 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)
KeralaSportsEditor
[edit]- KeralaSportsEditor (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
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
[edit]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
[edit]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)
User talk:Elnur Neciyev
[edit]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)
Adefolarin1
[edit]- Adefolarin1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
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)
Uarnoldmd
[edit]- Uarnoldmd (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
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)
- 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)
AhmedGedi
[edit]- AhmedGedi (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
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)
Adamant1 (15 August 2024)
[edit]- 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)
- 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)
- @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)-
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Fine. Just restore it and I'll correct the spelling later when I have the time. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can you do the spell checking for me? Enhancing999 (talk) 22:00, 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)
- So if you I undo your change once more you will leave it that way? Enhancing999 (talk) 21:56, 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 why haven't you undone it? Enhancing999 (talk) 21:50, 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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
[edit]- Kac8505 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
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
[edit]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)