Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 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
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
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
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.

Sohanur Rahman 2.0

[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Already warned, no new uploads. Yann (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Per Special:Diff/1006494036, "the user again started doing same thing." CC আফতাবুজ্জামান, Moheen.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also informed him about this issue. The problem is that the user hasn't responded on his talk page, so it's hard to figure out what exactly the problem the user is facing. ~Moheen (keep talking) 15:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moheen: Lack of respect for copyrights?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. One week block for uploading copyvios after Yann's warning. Taivo (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: Thanks! I was just going to add "lack of respect for users commenting on their user talk page, even in their native language".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New sockpuppets of globally locked User:Wave of Pandas

[edit]
✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I took liberty to mass delete 20 night uploads. Taivo (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about Grandmaster Huon

[edit]

Grandmaster Huon (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has a weird obsession with nominating things for speedy deletion. Almost all of their recent edits are just nominating things for speedy deletion, One of these are the MOTHER boxarts, which this user repeatedly claims and nominates for deletion because of the earth used in these logos (despite it being in the public domain) . Despite commons "explicitly permits the hosting of photographs that carefully reproduce a two-dimensional public domain work", this user still tries to nominate these files for deletion. Again, just a concern. TzarN64 (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding onto this, This user has been asked many times to calm down on their mass deletion requests over a month ago, It seems like this has been happening for awhile, now. TzarN64 (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most mass deletions have been successful though. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and I perfer a strict interpretation of legal matters per COM:PCP. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion should only be reserved for obvious cases. For example, Mother 2 image should have been a DR, not a speedy in my opinion. COM:PCP also requires significant doubt about the freedom of a file, not merely theoretical doubt. Abzeronow (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some files still need to be reviewed because of copyright concern. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The MOTHER's earth Logo is substantially different from the NASA version. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well isn't the point of Commons to be free of copyvios? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want copyvios hosted on Commons, at least develop an automated program to at least tag them. I'm honestly tired of using visual file change to tag and notify copyvios, it becomes very tedious. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Earth in the Mother logo is not faithful enough to carefully reproduce the NASA photo, it seems to be a simplified tracing, see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Finnischer_Eishockeyverband_logo.svg. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General consensus among users on this site after countless deletion requests is that the Mother logos/boxart are below TOO Japan and images deriving from those in PD are allowed in Commons. Repeatedly requesting the same images to be deleted would most likely get COM:SNOW'd and you would probably get indeffed, too. TzarN64 (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was giving further information that would be helpful if such a statement reoccurs. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, there are various other Mother Logo deletion requests that are still active and must run their course before their final decision. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New problem with that contributor today, nominating for speedy deletion files for more than dubious reasons. At least de minimis should be discussed first[1]. Nominating that many files for speedy deletion is problematic. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This user has a huge obsession with deleting things for some reason? And some of the deletion reasons don't make sense to me- they're either very obviously de minimis or falsely claiming files under COM:TOO. I believe this is really problematic and this user either needs to stop falsely tagging things as copyvios. TzarN64 (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Grandmaster Huon: if there is anything much short of certainty, you should not be requesting a speedy delete. Please use the normal deletion request process if there is room for doubt. - Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel This user has repeatedly been asked to stop mass nominating things for deletion yet he still does it. This is the second time he's been brought to AN/U, and he has had an history of mass tagging things as well. For example: Grandmaster Huon has been banned from both EN and FR Wikipedia for the same mass AfD nominations. This user has repeatedly kept doing the same disruptive behavior. Even if we ignore the mass deletion requests, most of their speedy deletion requests are either very obviously de minimis, or just images derived from pubic domain images, which has been allowed on Commons for years per COM:PDARTREUSE.
TDLR; Grandmaster Huon has repeatedly kept doing the same disruptive behavior over and over again even we asked to stop. TzarN64 (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FR wikipedia was not in AfD, merely translation. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning on visiting Tahiti for a few weeks, and I'd love to share pictures of my Holiday on the site too. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my speedy deletions were successful though. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster Huon has been banned from both EN and FR Wikipedia, mostly for the same kind of issues : AfD/TfD/FfD/MfD nominations and bad patrol reverts. Grandmaster Huon is simply repeating the same kind of disrupting beheaviour on Wikicommons. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this makes sense. I will take a pause. I was not banned, merely blocked. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what de minimis is now. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EN wiki sanctions were done only a year ago, so was FR wiki and that was file transfers and inadequate translations, not for EN wiki reasons.. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Current and Previous disputes should not downplay the fact that I have uploaded numerous constructive photos to this platform. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Grandmaster Huon: Yes, you've done plenty of good work, but that does not give you a license to be disruptive.
Given that you seem to have trouble telling where the line is between a speedy-deletion copyvio and a DR: please only use speedy deletion if the file itself is apparently a plagiarism of someone else's work, and you have the URL of where it was copied from. Anything else, if you think there has been some violation of copyright (e.g. photo of a sign or building in a country with no FoP; copy of an artwork by a living or recently living artist) stick to DRs so if there are nuances there is a place to discuss them. - Jmabel ! talk 02:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, I do not have an intent to be disruptive, and if it seemed to be disruptive, this disruption would only be temporary and a small price to pay for a better platform for free media, similar to how spring cleaning or the construction of a new building has a minor impendence to household or urban life, but eventually leads to a more robust environment. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Grandmaster Huon: No, there is no upside to you nominating things as speedy deletions that should be handled as DRs. You don't do yourself any favors by trying to justify it. - Jmabel ! talk 05:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Grandmaster Huon has continued to nominate files for speedy deletion that should have been a DR instead. Abzeronow (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe some action is needed, be it a restriction from speedying files or block. Bedivere (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere Grandmaster Huon has a large history of mass deleting things- which is why they got indeffed on the English and French Wikipedias. I don't really believe theyll stop mass tagging files after they continued to nominate things for speedy deletion. I honestly think blocking is the best option here. TzarN64 (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've issued a preventative one week block. Discussion about sanctions may continue Bedivere (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I'm beginning to just revert some of these now. I'm shocked after two AN/U's he still hadn't learnt his lesson! TzarN64 (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[undent]Given the name of this thread, I want to report another concern with Grandmaster Huon. They make a lot of good deletion requests, but I question a lot of them, and more importantly, a very recent action of theirs really shocked me. See User talk:Grandmaster Huon#Consider backing off a little and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Akihabara August 2014 09.JPG, particularly this difference and my response to it. I've never seen someone vote "on my behalf" like that, and I'm really shocked by the chutzpah of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well you never explained how you think this deletion request is against de minimis. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Grandmaster Huon: absolutely out of line to turn someone's non-vote comment into a vote. Raising a doubt is not the same as drawing a conclusion, and even beyond that, someone is entitled to express an opinion without casting a vote.
Further, clearly someone with Ikan Kekek's level of experience here does not need your unsolicited assistance in how to comment/vote on a DR. - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then what was Ikan's doubt, and how would this affect the file outside of the current scope of the deletion request? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is the problem. You don't get the point of your disruptive actions. Bedivere (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was that I did not follow preestablished precedent without bringing something substantially new to the table. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem was that you took it upon yourself to pretend to vote on my behalf when I was explaining why I disagreed with your reopening a deletion request on a previously kept file. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Given that no new comments have surfaced since yesterday's preventative one-week block, and based upon the comments above, I believe there is consensus to indefinitely block Grandmaster Huon. Indefinite does not mean infinite, so inevitably the user may ask for an unblock anytime, but such an unblock would need to come with a compromise to stop their disruptive behavior. They are effectively restricted from requesting speedy deletion of files, indefinitely. They may only nominate files for deletion, even if they are blatant copyvios, since they may be speedily closed on sight by any admin (as common procedure). That way, any file will need at least one week before deletion, unless obvious cases, and there will be most likely more than two eyes watching these. --Bedivere (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Cross-wiki uploads by User:Ng Huy Hoàng

[edit]

Ng Huy Hoàng was created on February 26, 2024, and remained unused for a few days before. On March 2, the account start cross-wiki uploading various files from other Wikipedia Commons, most of which seemed to have been tagged with {{Permission ticket}}, but also some which were tagged with {{Permission received}} and still in need of verification. Many of the early moves have " Ticket permission added by non-VRT member OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member" in their edit summaries. Ng Huy Hoàng has also created Template:OTRS chứng which could just be a Vietnamese translation Template:Permission ticket, but not sure. Ng Huy Hoàng is moving files at a fairly fast pace (sort seems like en:WP:MEATBOT) without anyone really checking on their work. Cross-wiki uploading is of course permitted by Commons policy, but it's also something that can be problematic because a fair number of files aren't properly vetted before being moved. Local files often get deleted by default once they've been moved to Commons regardless of whether they were OK to move in the first place; so, an inappropriate move could lead to two files being deleted. There have been several licensing related notifications already added to Ng Huy Hoàng's user talk page since the account was created, some of which have resulted in deletion. For sure, anyone can make mistakes, but these notifications indicate (at least to me) that maybe Ng Huy Hoàng is moving too quickly and probably should slow down. It might be a good idea for someone to take a look at all their moves to make sure they're OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I'm having trouble following some of that, which may be related to why this has been sitting for 20 hours with no action. Could I ask you to please reread what you wrote & see if you can maybe make this clearer? - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is looks like an evolution from the "no permission" spam from taiwanese accounts. @Krd, can you take a look, as you were involved the last time somthing like this happened? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: TL;DR: User:Ng Huy Hoàng is uploading copyvios falsely tagged with various permission tags, and moving files from other wikis resulting in deletion in both places.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a full scale mess. I have no idea how this can be cleaned up. I suggest to block the user and delete all uploads. --Krd 16:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you implement that? I'm also willing to open a CU case if needed. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. --Krd 16:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G., I can't find the original thread about the issue, do you remember where we had the dicussion? (@Krd, You were at that dicusssion as you were the deleteing admin. @Bedivere, Do you remember where the dicussion took place? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware that there was any prior discussion. Krd 16:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was due to Your mass deletion of a bunch of files falsely tagged with {{no permission}} about 5 months ago. This may have been at abuse filter, but I can't find the report in the archives. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember this incident at all Bedivere (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alachuckthebuck: Marchjuly's post was the first I remember seeing of this; I just distilled that post. There was probably something on another wiki that I didn't see (perhaps enwiki).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This happened a few months ago, and was due to some users going on a no permission tagging spree. 1 week later, Krd deleted the files, I noticed via IRC, and I forgot where the dicussion happened. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alachuckthebuck Are you referring to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 97#Unusual Deletion of Images of Vietnamese Artists? Tvpuppy (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am, thank you for finding it! All the Best -- Chuck Talk 01:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd, I have filed the case. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 02:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Jmabel for not responding sooner; I was away for the past couple of days and was unable to edit using my phone. I also apologize if my original post was confusing. Basically, Ng Huy Hoàng made a lot of cross-wiki uploads from English Wikipedia and also apparently from Vietnamese Wikipedia over the past few days, and some of the ones moved from English Wikipedia probably shouldn't have been moved because they had be tagged with {{Permission received}} templates, i.e. an email was sent to VRT but was found to be insufficient. Some of the other files moved had been tagged with {{Permission ticket}} templates, but the edit summaries for some of those files (like this one) indicate the "Permission ticket" templates weren't added by a VRT member. So, I just thought that it might be a good idea for an admin or VRT member to take a look at the files Ng Huy Hoàng had already moved to see if they're OK for Commons. Most of the ones moved from English Wikipedia seemed to have been tagged for speedy deletion per en:WP:F8, which is fine if the files are OK for Commons but not so good if they're not. I'm not familiar any issues related to Vietnamese Wikipedia and the mistagging of Vietnamese Wikipedia or Commons files with {{No permission since}}. I really only noticed Ng Huy Hoàng and their uploads because four of the files COM:VRTN#Ticket #2024100410007511 and COM:VRTN#ticket:2024121610007888) moved from English Wikipedia had been still awaiting VRT verification; these files have, however, been deleted since I asked about them at VRTN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on the terminology: This is about file import from other Wikis. Cross-Wiki upload is something totally different. Cross-Wiki upload uploads the files to Commons never touching the local Wiki. GPSLeo (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching my error GPSLeo. The files I referred to above were imported to Commons from English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: Since you've blocked Ng Huy Hoàng, there will be no new uploads to sort out for at least awhile. There are, however, files like File:Susan Hespos.jpeg, File:Ricardo Ernst.jpg, File:Robert Frykenberg.jpg, File:Vasilis Fthenakis.png, File:Fakhreddine Karray.jpg, File:Stephen Phillips.jpeg, File:Lingyan Shi.jpeg, File:George V. Mann.png, File:Lars Henrik Smedsrud1.jpg, File:Lars Henrik Smedsrud2.jpg, File:Ulrich Walter.jpg, File:Rolf Reitz.jpg and File:Anudeep wikipedia image.jpg that might need a closer look since they were all imported to Commons even though they still haven't been verified by VRT. In addition, there's also File:WMCA Good Guys 1964.jpg and File:WMCA-AM 570 Good Guys January-February 1964.jpg which were inported but also which seem to be the same image with different file names; one of these has been VRT verified but the other has been tagged with {{npd}}, which seems odd since (once again) they're the same image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears al files have been tagged accordingly. Is there anything still missing? Krd 17:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
​ Not sure, but those that are tagged seem odd. For example, File:Ricardo Ernst.jpg looks like it was tagged with {{OTRS pending}} by the user who originally uploaded the file to English Wikipedia when they uploaded the file; however, the file is also tagged with {{Npd}} dated January 11, 2025. There's no record of this tagging in the file page's history; so, perhaps it's automatically added at some point due to the "OTRS pending" template. Either way, there's no record of the original uploader being notified about this that I can find on either their Commons user talk page or their English Wikipedia user talk page, and there's also no {{Permission received}} template indication VRT even received an email for this image. There are several files like this and all have the same issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All done, I think. Krd 17:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Krd. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andreibucurestiromania

[edit]

Por favor advierten al usuario que deja de publicar logos complejos o que lo bloqueen a este usuario. AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Bedivere@Yann@Taivo@Bastique AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
¿Cómo pueden estar por encima del umbral si este es desconocido? Bedivere (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere:Según Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Romania no dice nada del TOO en este país pero por ejemplo el logo de CFR Calatori no es simple porque aparece el símbolo de un tren ,es complejo y según Commons:Copyright rules entre 2 países EEUU y algun país pero si no tiene el TOO de un país como Romania hay que usar el TOO en USA. AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A mi me da la impresión de que el logo es bastante simple. Bedivere (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by user 12akd

[edit]

Unfortunately user:12akd is uploading out of scope, completely meaningless images by the hundreds. I think this activity must be stopped and these images should be deleted.

For instance:

At least the #77, #32, and #22 are fine. It is useful to have pictures of ordinary objects and places. Yann (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree exactly with Yann. - Jmabel ! talk 16:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and incivility by Adamant1

[edit]
Moved from w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

At Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/03/Category:BSicon Adamant1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) responded to my thought that his CfD may not be logistically practical in the real world, with accusations and abuse:

05:05, 11 March 2025

  • "The needless condescension on your end"
  • "all your [sic] capable of is swearing at other users"
  • "resorting to grade school level potty mouthing"

05:55, 11 March 2025

  • "It is a little rich that your [sic] being that judgmental towards me when you don't even know what website we're on"
  • "You either have no idea how this works or your [[sic] to [sic] busy throwing a fit over it to care. My guess is that it's a little bit of both. You're clearly overcompensating for something with the bad attitude."

20:24, 11 March 2025

  • "I know people love to knee jerk fear monger and throw around insults the second someone suggest something"
  • "The hyperbolic, knee jerk opposition really just comes off as bad faithed concern trolling at this point"

(Admittedly, I did accuse him of having snark and causing a shit-disturbance.)


He then moved on to Jkudlick:

02:02, 12 March 2025

  • "Your [sic] just trying to derail the discussion."

02:34, 12 March 2025

  • "I'd appreciate it if you and Useddenim did the same [bow out of this (discussion)]."

Useddenim (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim This is an issue for Commons to resolve, not English Wikipeida. Please raise it at :c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems instead. – robertsky (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky: Thanks for moving the report. People pretty frequently think this is Wikipedia for some reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
⬆️ Further evidence of Adamant1's jumping to conclusions and/or sloppy editing (and including a back-handed insult, too). Please review the page history. Useddenim (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1 the move was done by @Useddenim, after I told them so above. And Useddenim, unfortunately it is true that the English Wikipedia admin venues do receive reports about other projects, Commons included. We just point people the directions to the right venue(s). Robertsky (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
⬆️ "There's this thing that Wikipedia follows that's called w:wp:consensus and I'm not going to make a unilateral change to a major project."

Boomerang proposal

[edit]

I'm aware that I'm topic banned from here King of Hearts said that I was allowed to post here to defend myself if someone reported me. So hopefully this is OK.

More to meat of the report, as people can see from [edit] Useddenim edited out of the lot both sides of our back and forth before filing this to make it seem less hostile on their end. It seems that a couple of their bullet points are also taken out of context. I'm not going to cover everything that was said here but a few points:

  • My comment that they were swearing and "resorting to grade school level potty mouthing" was directly in response to them saying "Go shit-disturb somewhere else." The last time I checked "shit" is a swear word. But they purposely edited it out of the discussion and didn't include it here to make it seem like there was no reason for my comment.
  • "I'd appreciate it if you and Useddenim did the same [bow out of this (discussion)]." What I actually said there was "I think I'm going to bow out of this on my end for now so other people have a chance to comment. I'd appreciate it if you and Useddenim did the same. The endless back and forth here really isn't productive." I really don't see what the issue with that comment is. The back and forth clearly wasn't productive.

The rest of their bullets points are much of the same. Comments that I made directly in response to (and as a result of) insults on their end that they purposefully edited out of the conversation and then didn't included here to make it look like I was just saying things randomly for no reason.

This was supposedly filed due to "accusations and abuse." Their whole "Go shit-disturb somewhere else" is clearly abusive. There's other things that they said in the original discussion before they edited it that aren't any better. It's also extremely beyond the fray for Useddenim to edit large parts of the conversation out in a way that makes them seem less hostile and then report me based on the edited version of it. So I'm proposing a boomerang block or at least a warning since this is clearly an attempt to use ANU as a form of harassment and bullying on Useddenim's end. Adamant1 (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"shit-disturb" is not swearing in Canadian English, as a quick google search will show. My user page has indicated that I use Canadian English, implicitly since August 2016 and explicitly since November 2017. Useddenim (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Shit" is a swear word. It wouldn't suddenly stop being one if someone calls another person a "shit bag" or something. Maybe I'd chalk it up to the Canadian thing if you hadn't of edited that part of your comment out to though. You certainly didn't say it wasn't a swear word in Canada when I called you out for it. Otherwise maybe I'd believe you. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Looks to me like you both gave about as good as you got. I'd much rather leave you both alone than block you both, but at the moment that seems like the choices I've got. May I suggest that the two of you voluntarily agree to an interaction ban? Is there any good reason not to? And please don't respond to this by saying your own behavior was fine, it wasn't, neither of you. - Jmabel ! talk 05:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its not hill I'm going to die on but I started the CfD and Useddenim was the one who instigated things to derail the conversation. Their one of the main people involved in the Biscon thing and we've never interacted with each other outside of this as far as I'm aware. So if we are interaction banned I would be forced to say F it to the whole thing. Whereas all that happens on their end is that they get their way because I'm forced to piss off it at that point. I'm more willing to accept an interaction ban as long as its under the understanding that they leave me along in relation to the CfD and anything else related to it though. Really, you should just ban him from participating in the CfD. That would essentially deal with it. I don't have a problem with him outside of that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an actual interaction ban is needed as long as you both de Facto don't mess up with each other. Adamant, just let it be Bedivere (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to limit my comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/03/Category:BSicon to the subject at hand. Useddenim (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I volunteerly retracted the CfD. I'll just remove categories for "icon/legend/logos" from ones for logos when I see them going forward since they clearly don't follow the universality principle and there doesn't seem to be any other way to deal with it given the contentious of the issue. Hopefully that's a compromise everyone involved in this is willing to accept. I'm going to "let it be" beyond that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that I am misreading the statement above, but to me it appears that the intent is to rename or delete any BSicon categories that contain "icon", "legend" or "logos"? That is not a "compromise" that would be acceptable to Commons:WikiProject BSicon; if however he means to add the icons in those categories to other, more conventionally-named categories that would be perfectly acceptable and indeed welcomed. Useddenim (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. To quote the comment "I'll just remove categories for "icon/legend/logos" from ones for logos." As an example, I removed Category:Icons for railway descriptions/legende/logos from Category:Logos of rail transport companies since categories for "icons/legende/logos" aren't an actual thing on here. Let alone is that how logos are usually categorized.
I'm not going to add the logos in a category like Category:Icons for railway descriptions/legende/logos into existing categories for logos because I don't think it's a good solution to the problem. Images of "Icons/legende/logos" just shouldn't be dumped into the same category to begin with. Simplicity_principle "We should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category. There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided." --Adamant1 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume "Biscon" means "BSicon"? - Jmabel ! talk 06:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

user:PelicandeOussou

[edit]

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done indef-blocked. @CoffeeEngineer: you may want to DR or speedy any remaining uploads. I haven't been following this one closely enough to say that any given file is problematic. - Jmabel ! talk 05:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spurzem

[edit]

Spurzem is highly active on the QIC page. Unfortunately, he tends to react emotionally when encountering opinions that contradict his own. His comments in such cases often border on personal attacks, including accusing other users of bad faith. This behavior previously resulted in a block in 2017. Spurzem also tends to carry conflicts from one discussion to another - for example, making ironic or passive-aggressive references to comments made by certain users he perceives as opponents, even under unrelated photos.

I drew attention to this behavior some time ago and warned Spurzem about it twice. On the second occasion, Spurzem accused me of attempting to intimidate him due to what he described as "ironically worded criticism." Each warning, however, did temporarily calm the situation.

Unfortunately, Spurzem's behavior has recently deteriorated again. He is now making comments that border on personal attacks in a discussion under an image that he himself previously attempted, unsuccessfully, to improve.

In my opinion, the situation has escalated sufficiently to warrant bringing it once again to the administrators' attention. I leave it up to you whether this warrants another block, an administrator-issued warning, or simply increased observation of his activity.

Examples and warnings (older):

And latest:

Regards, -- Jakubhal 15:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing what Jakubhal has collected about me. But is criticism not allowed? Best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I see no "teasing" in https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&diff=prev&oldid=853975074. It's a valid question whether a better image would be possible. - Jmabel ! talk 07:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment In https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&diff=prev&oldid=854220126, as far as I can tell the reference to "photographic junk" is not aimed at any person or image in particular. It is valid for Spurzem to say that he thinks that frequently the wrong images get QI status. - Jmabel ! talk 07:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment "ironic" comment etc.: I've got to say, I can see his point. The image immediately above seems also to have an issue of having much of its main subject in darkness. I personally wouldn't make either image a QI. - Jmabel ! talk 07:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've looked at enough. This may not win Spurzem any prizes for the most polite person ever to engage in QI discussions, but none of it seems to call for administrative sanctions. - Jmabel ! talk 07:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't entirely agree with your assessment because you're not considering the connections between the comments. In some of my examples, he comments below votes by users he's arguing with elsewhere. You've also omitted some of his worst statements. However, it's clear to me I don't have support for this request. Apparently, other users at QIC aren't as bothered by this communication style. Therefore, the request should be closed. I'll do my best not to pay any more attention to Spurzem's comments. -- Jakubhal 12:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mikuni1024

[edit]

After copyvio warning, this user didn't stop uploading mass copyvio photos. Netora (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, most files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mass out-of-process moves by AnRo0002

[edit]

AnRo0002 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Today I noticed that AnRo0002 moved one of my uploads from File:Turkey vultures (01721).jpg to File:Cathartes aura (01721).jpg (changing the unambiguous common name to the Latin binomial). I reverted, as (a) that's not covered by COM:FNC, and (b) people tend to search for common names, so I use them in titles (we categorize by Latin binomial, so both bases are covered). I reverted and left a message at 15:23 today. Now I see that AnRo0002 has edit warred to restore the previous move and moved dozens (hundreds?) more in the time since I left the message. As they don't seem responsive on the talk page, I'm opening this. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done 1 day block, unacceptable. --A.Savin 19:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshinerealtybrokerage

[edit]

Promotional account only. Nuke uploads and indef. Blocked on enwiki already. Jonteemil (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done indefblocked, nuked Bedivere (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nadezjda198

[edit]

Nadezjda198 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is a new user and seems to be a child that uploads his drawings, many of them already deleted. Could an administrator warn him/her and deleted any out-of-scope of Commons images and files. Pierre cb (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pierre cb: I warned them and created Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nadezjda198 for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aventury

[edit]

Aventury (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  a new user that does not seems to know copyright rules as he uploads copyrighted website images or use copyrighted backgound s to make his creations. Should be warned and uploads be evaluated. Pierre cb (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Warned. @Pierre cb: Please note that no admin right is needed for that. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ecotto29200

[edit]

Ecotto29200 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and their sockpuppets (confirmed on enwiki):

have been mass-reverting hundreds of files to old revisions. I think a block is in order. C F A 16:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CFA: Please give the link to English Wikipedia investigations. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ecotto29200. C F A 16:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked. Working on cleanup. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:К.Лаврентьев

[edit]

К.Лаврентьев (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) continues uploading images with false rationale and clear derivatives as 'own works' after mass deletions for exactly the same violations and two long-term blocks (3 and 6 months). Komarof (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. 1 year block (3rd block). Next block should be indefinite. Taivo (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jhon A Salvador

[edit]

Jhon A Salvador (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has uploaded copyright violation despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sock puppet of Wave of Pandas

[edit]

User: Fogg0302 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Same useless photos of Hong Kong as globally locked Wave of Pandas et al. Krok6kola (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to take this up right now, and yes it does look like Wave of Pandas, but File:Grand Harbour setle 09.jpg is probably worth saving. - Jmabel ! talk 07:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
possibly worth saving File:Regent and central.jpg as well. - Jmabel ! talk 07:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I blocked Fogg indefinitely and mass deleted all his/her uploads (except one). Taivo (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:186.172.190.5

[edit]

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

This random Latin American IP address has attacked me multiple times by adding false and unnecessary split requests at 2 of my files and adding an inappropriate deletion request at a file. I even had to curse just to get this off of my mind. 🗽Freedoxm🗽 (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hifisamurai

[edit]

Hifisamurai (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Repeated copyright issues. False attribution claiming things they ripped off from the web as "their own" or "government work" when they're not. Looking at talk page, I see they have had multiple copyright issues. Graywalls (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I warned the user. Copyvios are deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RowanJ LP

[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked Rowan for a week and deleted 2 copyvios. Taivo (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:L'Hommedusud

[edit]

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 19:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Only 1 upload after last block, no edits during last 2 months. I do not feel urgent need to block. Maybe next time. Taivo (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kürschner

[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those files are photos of a fur coat. As a useful object, they're not copyrightable. The underpattern in File:Saphir Nerzmantel, ausgelassen verarbeitet (4).jpg might be, but it's marginal; not the sort of thing I'd consider noticeboard worthy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Antwort: Ich schreibe als Fachmann in der deutschen Wikipedia über Pelze und dokumentiere die verschiedenen Fellarten, Verarbeitungsmethoden und die Geschichte der Pelzmode und des Handels. Dazu habe ich bisher etliche tausend Dateien hochgeladen. Ich bemühe mich dabei, das Urheberrecht nicht zu verletzen, immer wieder ist vielleicht etwas grenzwertig, wo man sich streiten könnte. Die sichtbare Ecke eines Futterdessins in einem Mantel halte ich eher nicht für schützenswert. – Aber zu sagen, ich würde permanent Urheberrechtsverstöße begehen, ist schon ziemlich mutig... Im Übrigen bin ich der Meinung, dass man mit solchen Anschuldigen vorsichtiger sein sollte, schließlich machen wir unsere Arbeit hier ehrenamtlich und bilden uns ein, etwas Gutes zu bewirken. Wenn man dafür derart angegriffen wird, zieht einen das runter und man verliert die Motivation. Mir geht es jedenfalls so. Schöne Woche. -- Kürschner (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes: The photos are copyrightable, that's what he didn't provide licenses for until User:AntiCompositeBot tagged him.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Jeff G. It's not copyvio. He simply failed to provide a license to his own work. That's a much less serious issue. Maybe if there was a long term history of uploading works without licenses, or a willful refusal to provide licenses, that would be one thing, but a simple error is no big deal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Uploader just forgot to add a license tag. Many thanks to Kürschner for his highly valuable contributions during the past 16 years! --Achim55 (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Please all who are reading this, let's keep in mind this nonsensical report by Jeff G. for his next RfA run. I sincerely hope this user is never going to become a sysop here, otherwise the damage for Commons might be severe. --A.Savin 08:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: So COM:L and COM:EVID aren't policies any more? I reported what I saw as violations of them. How is that wrong? That was after I issued the final warning in Special:Diff/1002374998 17:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin, That jab at Jeff G. was not needed here. Speaking of @Jeff G., please remember to assume good faith, with both new and old users alike. This was a simple, easily correctible mistake by a longtime contributor who meant no harm. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 21:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About the underpattern in File:Saphir Nerzmantel, ausgelassen verarbeitet (4).jpg: it should be De minimis / fulfil the Beiwerk requirements, as even another pattern would not change the overall impression of the photograph, which is the core saying of the law as far as I understand it. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alt accounts, acceptable use?

[edit]

These two accounts seem to be the same individual. I don't know if it's allowed. Neither account is blocked and the newer one seem to have been uploading files that were previously uploaded by the older account and also nominated for deletion. The older account seem to have nominated all of its files for deletion. Jonteemil (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have let them know that they are in danger of being blocked if they do not respond here and explain. If they continue to edit any significant amount without responding here to explain, I would urge blocking at least Jimmylondon.fotografie which has not been active since Jimart.fotografie was created.- Jmabel ! talk 01:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to block the newest account. No useful content anyway. Yann (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theron2

[edit]

Please see Special:Contributions/Theron2 and also revert the user's edits. Thanks in advance. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed them that if they turn any more dates into invalid values, this account will be blocked.
If there were other issues, then someone else can spell those out: I didn't have the patience to sort through a large number of edits to find out.
It would be very useful if people making reports here would explain what they think is the problem with the reported user's edits (preferably with diffs) rather than expect an admin to redo whatever research they did that had them identify a problem. -- Jmabel ! talk 01:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're just spamming one or more YouTube links into random pages all across the project. Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should have gone to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism. It's just mass spamming. I've just reverted hundreds of spam links. No need to talk, just block immediately. --Sitacuisses (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't edited since the warning. But, yes, if they do this again, indef-block. - Jmabel ! talk 01:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel, this link has repeatedly been spammed by various accounts, see History of Category:CC-BY-SA-4.0. It has already been reported as long term cross wiki spam to m:Talk:Spam blacklist#youtube.com/watch?v=3f8VokxYQ4A, but the link wasn't blocked. --Sitacuisses (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the account has not yet been blocked and continues to spam, I've opened a new report at the vandalism board. --Sitacuisses (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel, thanks to your generosity, this account keeps on spamming hundreds of pages four hours after it was reported here. What a joke. --Sitacuisses (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Indeffed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitacuisses: if the complaint here had indicated that this was vandalism (or better yet, been posted to COM:AN/V) and/or indicated the nature of the vandalism, I'd have blocked. But, as it was, I was just told to look at their contributions. Picked 3 at random. Figured that could be someone just confused. Warned them. Said here that they should be indef'd if they continued.
Maybe I shouldn't have taken this on at all when I was about to go do other things for an hour or two, but if someone bringing an issue here doesn't take the time to describe the nature of a problem that they've presumably already got their head around, don't expect an admin to spend a bunch of time investigating. If you really think that was inappropriate on my part, please raise the issue however/wherever you think is appropriate. As long as you link this thread, I promise not to bother further justifying my actions: I've just said my part right here. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry everybody. Now this user is being globally locked (I've nominated this lock on SRG). 〈興華街〉📅❓ 13:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:C.Suthorn

[edit]

C.Suthorn (talk · contribs)

Back in January, the user had created a Category:Bundesglasfaser and uploaded numerous photos into it. On COM:Forum (in German), there was discussion on this, with consensus that this word is solely a product of the user's imagination with zero Google search result and zero notability on Wikimedia sites. The category was then deleted and emptied. The corresponding Wikidata item was deleted as well as non-notable.

Now it turns that the user keeps uploading tons of stuff into the same, no longer existing, category. (Including files of doubtful quality and usability such as File:Bundesglasfaser 0132.jpg), all named with the same imaginary term. Kindly request to consider whether it's gaming Commons at the very least, actually vandalism by adding out-of-scope content after a clear warning (discussions on Commons and WD). --A.Savin 06:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland hat zum Jubiläum ihrer Verfassung - dem Grundgesetz - einen Verfassungstag begangen. Dazu wurden von allen Bundesministerien Stände auf dme Platz der Republik errichtet. Der Platz der Republik ist für Deutschland das, was der Rote Platz in Moskau für Russland ist, was der General Post Office in Dublin für die Republik Irland ist, oder der Rasen vor dem weißen Haus für die USA. Um die Stände der Ministerien auf dem Verfassungstag mit Internet zu versorgen, wurde auf dem Platz der Republik ein Glasfaserverteilerkasten errichtet, der aber seitdem nicht mehr verwendet wird und dem Verfall preisgeben ist. Insbesondere liegen auf dem Platz der Republik verschiedene Glasfasern, die von der Witterung und von passierenden Menschen immer wieder hin und her gestoßen werden. Diese enden in Glasfasersteckern, die nicht für den Gebrauch im Freien vorgesehen sind. Selbst in einem Innenraum würden sie mit Schutzkappen versehen werden, wenn sichnciht in eine Buchse eingestöpselt sind. Auf dem symbolischen Platz der Republik verfällt also digitale Infratruktur unter den Augen von Staatsgeästen, von Touristen, von Politikern. Als mir dies aufgefallen ist, habe ich angefangen diesen Verteilkasten zu dokumentieren. Das ist ein fortlaufendes Projekt, bis dieer Kasten entweder entfernt oder in Stand gesetzt wird. Ich habe zunächst Fotos gesammelt für eine spätere Veröffentlichung. Dann habe ich mich aber entschieden mit der Veröffentlichung zu beginnen, da nicht absehtbar ist, wie lange dieser Verteilerkasten weiterhin verfällt. Für die Fotos habe ich den Namen "Bundesglasfaser" gewählt. Das ist ein eingängiges Wort, nur bestehend aus lateinischen Grundbuchstaben aus dem ACSCII, so dass es auch für MW-User, die nicht in der lateinischen Schrift beheimatet sind einfach handlebar ist. Da alle Fotos mit dem Namen "Bundesglasfaser" dasselbe Objekt ein einem ganz konkreten Ort, mit ganz bestimmten Koordinaten zeigen, ist es nach der Logik von Commons sinnvoll, dass diese auch alle mit demselben SDC-depict-Statement versehen werden. Um das zu ermöglichen, habe ich eine Kategorie erstellt, um damit eine Wikidata- Q-Item erstellen zu können, das dann in den SDC als depict verwendet werden kann. Wie diese Kategorie und das Q-Item heißen, ist dabei nebensächlich. Leider haben sich @A.Savin, @L. Beck und @Gnom zusammengetan, nicht etwa um die Kategorie oder das Q-Item umzubenennen, sondern um beides zu löschen und so zu verhindern, dass die Fotos, die ich im Projekt Bundesglasfaser erstellt habe und solange weiter erstellen werde, wie dieser Verteilerkasten auf dem Platz der Republik weiter verfällt, ein depict-Statement erhalten. Alle drei genannten sind bereits in der Vergangenheit gegen mich aktiv gewesen. Noch ein Hinweis: Bereits bevor ich das erste Bild hochgeladen habe, habe ich entschieden, diese Bilder mit einer 4-stelligen Numerierung zu versehen, da ich es für möglich hielt, dass mit der Zeit mehr als 999 Bilder zusammenkommen werden. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt konnte ich nicht vorhersehen, dass drei andere User beginnen würden, gegen diese Fotos vorzugehen. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Federal Republic of Germany celebrated Constitution Day to commemorate the anniversary of its constitution – the Basic Law. All federal ministries set up stands on the Platz der Republik. The Platz der Republik is to Germany what Red Square in Moscow is to Russia, what the General Post Office in Dublin is to the Republic of Ireland, or the lawn in front of the White House is to the USA. To provide internet access to the ministries' stands on Constitution Day, a fiber optic distribution box was erected on the Platz der Republik, but it has since been disused and is falling into disrepair. In particular, various fiber optic cables lie on the Platz der Republik, which are repeatedly knocked back and forth by the weather and passing people. These end in fiber optic connectors that are not intended for outdoor use. Even indoors, they would be fitted with protective caps if not plugged into a socket. Thus, on the symbolic Platz der Republik, digital infrastructure is decaying under the watchful eyes of state officials, tourists, and politicians. When I noticed this, I started documenting this distribution box. It's an ongoing project until the box is either removed or repaired. I initially collected photos for later publication. But then I decided to start publishing them, as it's unclear how long this distribution box will continue to deteriorate. I chose the name "Bundesglasfaser" (Federal Fiber Optics) for the photos. It's a catchy word, consisting only of Latin letters from ASCII, making it easy to handle even for MW users who aren't familiar with the Latin alphabet. Since all photos with the name "Bundesglasfaser" show the same object at a very specific location with very specific coordinates, it makes sense, according to Commons' logic, that they all be assigned the same SDC describe statement. To make this possible, I created a category to create a Wikidata Q item, which can then be used as a depict in the SDC. The name of this category and the Q-Item is irrelevant. Unfortunately, @A.Savin, @L. Beck and @Gnom joined forces, not to rename the category or the Q-Item, but to delete both and thus prevent the photos I created in the Federal Fiber Optics project, and will continue to create as long as this distribution box on the Platz der Republik continues to deteriorate, from receiving a depict statement. All three of the above have already taken action against me in the past. One more note: Even before I uploaded the first image, I decided to assign these images a four-digit number, as I considered it possible that more than 999 images would accumulate over time. At that time, I could not have foreseen that three other users would begin to take action against these photos.
translator: Google Translate via   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I  Oppose any action against C.Suthorn for this.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
unacceptable action, if there is a result of a discussion, everyone, even @C.Suthorn should accept that. Lukas Beck (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
C.Suthorn, Commons is not the place for your personal political project. We do not need hundreds of photos of a distribution box just because you have assigned it personal significance, and we certainly do not need a category or Wikidata item for it. Please find somewhere else to host your personal files. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535, I can see at lease some of the photos being within scope, but agree that uploading every single photo is a bit excessive, but I do commend their efforts to correctly catagorize and add structured data to their files. A dicussion should be had about the files, but none seems to have taken place on commons regarding their merit, just a warning. Everyone involved in the issue is at least partially at fault for this. This did not need to go to ANU, C.Suthorn's talk page would have sufficed, only going to ANU if it wasn't settled on their talk. @A.Savin, Can you link the relevant dicussion(s)? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This one, however German language only. --A.Savin 00:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about wikidata? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 00:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped, repeated upload of watermarked material

[edit]

KanekiXV (talk · contribs) uploaded File:Prof azeko2.jpg and File:Prof talifu.jpg. I've tagged for speedy deletion as these clearly have watermarks and likely belong to an agency and not the work of the uploader.

Since then, File:Prof sal.jpg and File:Profzek.jpg (cropped versions leaving out the watermark) have been uploaded with the same CC license and claims of own work. It's hard to view this as any other way than avoiding copyright issues. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia and I am learning rather quickly, about the errors in my article. I can assure you that I have ownership of these photos. That notwithstanding, I am open to all the criticisms and corrections as they come, so as to make better articles in the future, Thank you once again. KanekiXV (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

user:Vijay6767

[edit]

No productive edits, just censorship and OOS uploads Dronebogus (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you try not biting the newbies? The uploads should be checked by someone more familiar with {{BollywoodHungama}}, but Category:Tiger Shroff has a page on 46 Wikipedias; pictures of him are not out of scope. Yes, nominating explicit pictures for deletion is annoying, but people need at least one warning about it before it being dragged to the Administrator's board.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that Bollywood Hungama's images are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license because images of other celebrities like Prajakta Koli, CarryMinati, Tamannaah Bhatia and Elvish Yadav are also uploaded from Bollywood Hungama. Vijay6767 (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hmd5i (3rd report)

[edit]

AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Yann@Taivo@Bastique@Jmabel AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for 6 months (2nd block), reverted. Yann (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann:Thank you 👍 AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JohnnyL15

[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiGlobalEdit

[edit]

WikiGlobalEdit (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - continues to upload (the same) copyright violations after warning - Jcb (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. One week block plus I mass deleted all uploads. Taivo (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:মাত্রা

[edit]

মাত্রা (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) continued to upload copyright violations after final warning. 0x0a (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, most files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:100jan0vski

[edit]

100jan0vski (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has already been warned twice for uploading web content licensed as own work. Now they're removing speedy deletion tags without explanation or addressing source issues, and have done so after being asked not to do so. I believe at this point, the only remedy is a block. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Indeffed, because their response to this was some rather rude LOUTSOCKing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Osamaosamaosamaosama

[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Épine

[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=1011818898"