Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

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

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


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


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


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

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

Note

  • Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
  • It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Illegitimate Barrister

[edit]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please learn how to read. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

COM:L

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Proof of any recently deleted unfree files? Very poor block. Bidgee (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Quite a disappointing response by Bedivere. [1] Bidgee (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Please cease making bad faith statements. You have completely misunderstood how copyright and the ToU works. Bidgee (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Shocking, more people who support users who steal other users work. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for boomerang block

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    The only people lacking competence is pretty much everyone here. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support We don't need incivility on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


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)[reply]

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

Softbestreview

[edit]

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

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

Prof. Dr. Md. Abdur Rouf

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Milk Daddy 235

[edit]

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

MilkDaddy235 is not registered here, but files deleted for abuse of COM:WEBHOST. Yann (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
✓ Done Sock blocked, oldest account warned. Yann (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MZ123455

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
✓ 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)[reply]

Dariocorso1987

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

There is no copyright violations. @~AntanO4task has marked them copyvios without providing any evidences. Chin pin choo (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion requests by AntonO seem nonsensical: Commons:Deletion requests/2024 Wayanad landslides. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@~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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

Which image(s)? File:American Samoa Beach Sea Harbor Snorkling.jpg ? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Jmabel Ah. You're right. Here is another very similar shot. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Ahmedshoyebiqbal12

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

user:Alisahib2001

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

R. Gopakumar using multiple accounts

[edit]

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)[reply]

Also seeing some older accounts:
Belbury (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
✓ 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)[reply]
Sock accounts are now globally locked. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeralaSportsEditor

[edit]

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)[reply]

✓ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

User talk:Legendry3920

[edit]

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

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

User talk:Elnur Neciyev

[edit]

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

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

Adefolarin1

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Uarnoldmd

[edit]

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)[reply]

✓ Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
✓ Done Reblocked for a week. Yann (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AhmedGedi

[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, I really didn't think you'd mind. It certainly wasn't vandalism. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why haven't you undone it? Enhancing999 (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
So if you I undo your change once more you will leave it that way? Enhancing999 (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Can you do the spell checking for me? Enhancing999 (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Just restore it and I'll correct the spelling later when I have the time. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)-[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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]

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

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

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)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=910623122"