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

Note

  • Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using fou 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.

User:Finoskov

[edit]

User:Finoskov made the same errors since years. I tried to discuss with him in the past. Look at User talk:Finoskov#Category:Bugatti Type 28 and Category:Bugatti type 28 torpédo 1921 (Cité de l'Automobile), User talk:Finoskov# Second problem, User talk:Finoskov# Third problem, User talk:Finoskov#category-changes, User talk:Finoskov#D'Ieteren. No success.

One part is his matter with creating new categories, moving files from existing categories in his new categories and speedy deletion requests to the old=empty categories. Instead of moving categories. Losing category history, sometimes category talk pages, and often creating failures in articles in German and other wikipedias with links to commons.

Categories like Category:1920s Bugatti automobiles in the Musée National de l'Automobile. All files in the category must match the category name. Pictures showing older or younger Bugatti automobiles are not allowed. Pictures showing something else than Bugatti automobiles are not allowed. Pictures made elsewhere than in this museum are not allowed. But we find Category:Bugatti Prototype 28 torpedo (M.N.A.0310) 1921 (chassis 5001) with Category:Paris - Retromobile 2012 - Bugatti type 28 Torpedo made at an old car show in Paris. Wrong! Also we find Category:Bugatti Type 43 Graber roadster (M.N.A.0616) 1928 (chassis 43-258) with Category:Bugatti Type 43 Grand Sport 1928 (chassis 43-258), inclusive pictures made in Sweden in den 1930s, long before the opening of the museum.

Other example: Category:1921 automobiles in museums. We find Category:Ballot 3/8 LC biplace de course (Musée National de l'Automobile) with pictures made at Retromobile in Paris.

Category:Roadsters made in France was wrong in the past before I used Category talk:Roadsters made in France. No answer by Finoskov, only by another author.

Category:Voisin cabriolets (French language) with two subcategories. Category:Voisin C15 Charnico "Petit Duc" cabriolet 1928 (chassis 27 086) has at least one picture made in Netherlands: File:Avions-Voisin C15.jpg. Category:Voisin C30 Louis Dubos cabriolet 1938 (chassis 60 007) has only one picture, apparently made in Mullin Museum in USA: File:Avions Voisin C 30 Louis Dubos cabriolet 1938.jpg

The newest error and the reason for this message. Category:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) has one picture: File:Panhard & Levassor X29 Torpedo 1925 (6853815687).jpg, made at Bremen Motor Show in Bremen, Germany. Last weekend I removed the two wrong categories claiming that this car was not photographed in a museum. I used Category talk:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) with explanation and Ping to Finoskov. No answer. Today he made a revert without further details. --Buch-t (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I warned Finoskov several times years ago. One could consider removing ns Category access for, say, a month, hoping that they will change their behavior then. --Achim55 (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand ns in One could consider removing ns Category access for, say, a month....
I created the German articles to every Panhard & Levassor model in the past. For this reason I have a lot of this files and categories in my watch list. 2 two weeks I checked some edits made by Finoskov. I changed only some small things. I created some category talks, all with Ping to Finoskov. I hoped for comments. I received nothing. If he is not willing to discuss then he should avoid controversial things.
  1. Category talk:Panhard & Levassor Type A2 tonneau fermé (M.N.A.2220) 1899 (chassis 474) wrong datas in the source. Dimensions normalisées L (longueur/length) = 292 ; la (largeur/width) = 280 ; h (hauteur/height) = 225. This car cannot be 280 cm width. Through Wikidata the wrong width came to Commons. I hoped for an answer like this: „Yes, it must be wrong, I deleted the width everywhere inclusive Wikidata.“ But nothing happened. If I change the width at wikidata then I expect a revert because the source wrote 280 cm width.
  2. Category talk:Panhard & Levassor automobiles The sorting order is not clear. I had created my favorite beginning with T as Type in the past. Now he changed some, but not all, to sorting without Type. I started discussion. After that he changed more, but not all, to his favorite.
  3. Category talk:Panhard & Levassor 6 CV Charrette Anglaise 1897. This car made in 1897 cannot be a Type A1/A2 which was introduced 1899. I am excited to see if I will be reverted here too.
  4. Category talk:Panhard & Levassor X49 two-seater 20 CV Sport (M.N.A.6009) 1932 I wanted sources for this category. This Type 49 was not built 1932. Something is wrong.
  5. Category talk:Panhard & Levassor automobiles by chassis number Here I wanted a description for his sorting order. And noted that his system (when I understand his system) is limited to chassis numbers up to 99999. But there are lot of cars of Panhard & Levassor with chassis numbers over 100000 and over 200000.
  6. Category talk:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156)#Chassis number I noted that he created a category with this source. Note the question mark in Numéro de série : n° châssis 8156 ? The source is not sure about the chassis number. A 4-digit-number is not usual for a 1920 Panhard & Levassor. But Finoskov created the category with this name without stating any doubts.
  7. Category talk:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156)#Categories wrong category tree (picture made in Bremen not in the museum in Mulhouse): I tried to explain things like this to Finoskov in the last years - problably withour success. I removed the wrong categories with edit comment and creating the category talk and sent Ping to Finoskov. He made re-revert without comment without using any talk page. This must be misuse of the revert function.
Regarding the problem that Finoskov creates new categories and then empties existing categories and has them deleted via a quick deletion request, I also found: Category:Talbot-Lago T26 Grand Sport Coupe Saoutchik 1948 and User talk:Túrelio, where Túrelio confirmed that Finoskov's approach is not compliant with the rules.
I want that Finoskov will follow the rules and discuss controversial cases. Apparently, he needs a clear message from an administrator, a requirement (I do not know the english word for Adminauflage which is used in the German wikipedia) or a block, at least for certain areas. --Buch-t (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buch-t: I think what Achim55 meant by "ns" in "ns Category" is "namespace". I would have switched the word order.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see that it is my job to inform Finoskov. Done. --Buch-t (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last Saturday I wrote the message at User talk:Finoskov. He was very active during this time with 104 edits. In this time he did not writing anything here or at any talk page.
But he continued his own wrong system of category-renaming. He created new Category:Gaston Grümmer coachwork and moved files from the existing Category:Carrosserie Gaston Grümmer to his new category. After that the old and empty category was deleted by Taivo. We have three articles for this coachbuilding company. Viewing fr:Carrosserie Gaston Grümmer and clicking on Sur les autres projets Wikimedia : Carrosserie Gaston Grümmer, sur Wikimedia Commons, then you will see nothing. He destroyed the link to the Commons category. And this was in the French-language Wikipedia, his main language. Also note: he went his own way, not respecting the existing system. Why should the new name better than the old name? Where is the talk before? Nowhere I think.
I saw the problem of the necessary of changing links after moving or creating new categories in January 2023 and wrote on User talk:Finoskov#Category:Bugatti Type 28 and Category:Bugatti type 28 torpédo 1921 (Cité de l'Automobile). No success. If you go to fr:Bugatti Type 28 today and click on Wikimedia Commons, you still end up nowhere.
Summary of breaking the rules:
  1. Misuse revert (like here, before his revert I started talk with Ping, he did not answer and did not write any explanation)
  2. Wrong system with new categories instead of moving, described at Commons:Rename a category#Rename process – talks since 2019
  3. Wrong main categories or subcategories (like in France) – talks since 2023
  4. Keeping dead links to deleted categories (like fr:Carrosserie Gaston Grümmer) – talks since 2023
  5. Ignoring the necessary of main categories (like Bugatti Type 28), described at Commons:Rename a category#Deleting the old category – talks since 2023
  6. He avoids discussions. In January 2023 he wrote: Désolé pour écrire en français mais je ne maitrise pas assez l'anglais. My own English isn't very good either. Not wanting to discuss things, but instead going the own way and asserting himself, that is not possible in a collaborative work like Wikipedia. Commons:Rename a category#Types of renames, part Controversial fixes.
What will happen next? --Buch-t (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any comments?
Is he a rule breaker?
Are there ways to prevent him from breaking the rules again in the future?
If not, he can continue to do so for many years. --Buch-t (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I truly cannot follow most of the above, so let's take one case. @Buch-t, what is wrong with https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Panhard_%26_Levassor_Type_X29_Sport_20_torpedo_(M.N.A.2213)_1920-30_(chassis_8_156)&diff=next&oldid=946523224 ? - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture made at Bremen Classic Motorshow
In the Category:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) there is in the moment one picture. According to the source flickr it is in album Bremen Classic Motorshow 2012 and it was made February 3rd, 2012. That date was the beginning of the show 2012. The Bremen Classic Motorshow is a multi-day show for old cars in halls in the town Bremen, north of Germany. You can see on the picture "MEILENWERK" and "MUSEUM FÜR FAHRKULTUR" (it is German) at the wall and "OLDTIMERZENTRUM FLENSBURG" (Flensburg is also a town in north of Germany). This picture must be made at the Bremen Classic Motorshow.
Finoskov created the category. He chose categories like category:1920s Panhard & Levassor automobiles in the Musée National de l'Automobile and category:1920 automobiles in museums. Both things are not true. The picture in the category was definitely not made in the Musée National de l'Automobile (a famous car museum in Mulhouse, France, commonscat, web) and was not made in any museum.
I removed the two wrong categories with edit comment and with extra explanation for Finoskov (with Ping) on Category talk:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156).
His reaction was a revert, without edit comment, without any answer on the talk page.
This must be misuse of the revert function. --Buch-t (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is insanely complicated. @Buch-t, it would be much simpler if you could just clearly and briefly indicate three inappropriate things Finoskov has done.

That said: @Finoskov, it looks to me like at the very least you have been inappropriately uncommunicative in reverting another apparently experienced and competent user, and you have not responded at all here. It looks like for over a year you have been completely unresponsive to several users on this front. If you do not come and discuss this here, I am very inclined to block you in simple hope of getting your attention. - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Category:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) (history) / Category talk:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) (history) / wrong subcategories in museum
  2. Category:1898 Panhard & Levassor type A1 landaulet in the Musée National de l'Automobile (history - with his removing of my German explanation) / Category_talk:1898_Panhard_&_Levassor_type_A1_landaulet_in_the_Musée_National_de_l'Automobile (history) / he quoted incorrectly from the book
  3. He created Category:Gaston Grümmer coachwork, the existing Category:Carrosserie Gaston Grümmer was deleted later, causing dead links after clicking on fr:Carrosserie_Gaston_Grümmer#Liens_externes and Wikimedia Commons, ignoring Commons:Rename a category #Types of renames since years and after several talks to him
--Buch-t (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three more fresh errors made this week found and noticed at User talk:Finoskov#Monotrace, User talk:Finoskov#Rally / Salmson, User talk:Finoskov#Bugatti up to 1918. --Buch-t (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buch-t: you are not helping things a bit by piling on details of small disputes. Nothing here has clarified the nature of your complaint, and none of this appears to add relevant new dimensions to it. Unless you have something genuinely new to say (not just an umpteenth parallel example) or can actually write up a decent summary of your issue, please stop adding to this section, which is only preventing this from ever getting resolved. - Jmabel ! talk 21:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Achim55: it looks from your remark above that you may have more understanding than I of what is going on here. Could you please decide on the appropriate action to take here? - Jmabel ! talk 21:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what I should do. On novembre 9th I wrote 6 points. Your answer: I truly cannot follow most of the above, so let's take one case. I thought, that for your understanding it was better to write more details. You wanted only one case. You wrote https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Panhard_%26_Levassor_Type_X29_Sport_20_torpedo_(M.N.A.2213)_1920-30_(chassis_8_156)&diff=next&oldid=946523224 ? It is one of the six which I noted. I gave a detailed answer. (Please note: I cannot know if you are knowing about Bremen, Flensburg, Mulhouse, Bremen Motor Show, the museum in Mulhouse, or whether you can recognize where the picture was taken.) Your answer was insanely complicated and it would be much simpler if you could just clearly and briefly indicate three inappropriate things Finoskov has done. No word whether new or old things. I understand: you wanted 3 points in short. I gave 3 short points from the six above. And hours later, after finding new errors, I wrote one set with 3 links zu User talk:Finoskov. Now I get the impression that this was not desired at all.
You want a summary? I will try. He did and does controversial things, wrong things, some with reverts, rarely responds to discussions or addresses on his user talk page, and it is to be feared that he will continue to do so. There were multiple addresses in the past – without success. What is the next possible step: blocking for a time? --Buch-t (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not know how to address supposed specifics "He did and does controversial things, wrong things, some with reverts". That is not at all specific. Request to other administrators: would someone else please step in? I believe I am the only admin who has participated in this thread, and I still cannot tell what to make of this. I still can make almost no sense of what User:Buch-t is saying. My personal feeling is that if their communication to User:Finoskov has been equally unclear, I cannot really blame Finoskov for not responding, though their failure to participate here may still merit some sort of disciplinary action. - Jmabel ! talk 17:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock - CottonDuggan / TylerKutschbach

[edit]

Based on editing behavior, this user looks like they might be a ban-evading sock of User:TylerKutschbach. Omphalographer (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

115.166.48.24

[edit]

Special:Contributions/115.166.48.24 seems to replace time-zone info with inaccurate data as well as a few other strange edits. I don't think it's a good approach to require manual listing of users with problematic edits here – instead I hope there is some tool that notices when a large fraction of a user's edits have been reverted; e.g. Automoderator(?) Prototyperspective (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days. Yann (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donnysilva

[edit]

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

Copyvios (album art). Could someone nuke this user's contribs? JayCubby (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I tagged some files, and further warned this user. As they claim to be the author or copyright holder, let's see if a permission is coming. Yann (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military image sockpuppetry

[edit]

Something seems to be going on here, with all of these active accounts uploading the same kinds of content to Commons, five of them drawing from the Paraxade Flickr account and marcusburns1977 DeviantArt account (the latter of which was considered by a DR to be falsely licencing copyrighted content) and some interacting with each other's files.

Some account interactions:

Nearly all uploads from all of these users fall more or less into one of these categories:

Belbury (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury Please also look at Salenij (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  who has interacted with NotLessOrEqual (editing logged out) on Enwiki and is uploading the same topics. -- ferret (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note as well all of these accounts set their user page to a single character, including Salenij. -- ferret (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Salenij looks behaviourally similar: File:AIM54 A.jpg is taken from a new and single-upload DeviantArt account which claims AIM54A Missile I rendered in Blender; LeorkDreeam uploaded File:SpaceShuttIeSRBs.png, a rocketry image in the same AI-upscaled style, which was taken from a DeviantArt account which claimed My 3D rendering of the Space Shuttle SRB, using Blender.
The original marcusburns1977 DeviantArt account stopped posting in July, around the time that Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with marcusburns1977 was opened. Belbury (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Belbury I know commons policies differ in many ways from enwikis, but these are all CU-confirmed and blocked on enwiki now, plus a few more. The evidence is clear and unquestionable at that. en:Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NotLessOrEqual. -- ferret (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to wait for this thread to resolve before raising it an enwiki, since the Commons activity seemed more compelling, but fair enough if you've already looked at it! No block for Виктор Вихарев Марков? Belbury (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Missed it because stale, but I'm going to block on evidence. -- ferret (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the accounts not yet listed explicitly here, who have also made the same questionable uploads of AI/game uploads of weapons, which should also reveal some more sources for deviantart laundering:
-- ferret (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're washing through separate DeviantArt accounts with no other uploads (DaVietDoomer114 = diwiyii1989, RealAlizzon = realalizzon, ReXM412 = tajeka3123, Soft Kima = kimasoft, Zamanoous = nozamasaa), presumably to avoid revealing each other like that. Belbury (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ferret: Thanks a lot. We don't need a new check user on Commons, if the accounts were found to be socks elsewhere. I am going to block them all. Yann (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done All blocked, and all obvious copyright violations deleted. I think we should nuke all files without a reliable source, and also delete all unused files, specially animated GIF, which have little usefulness. Yann (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann Appreciated. I do recommend having the CU check and hardblock the underlying IP. It's fairly static and a hardblock for a while will help prevent a return. As far as the rest of the cleanup, I'd honestly delete anything that isn't clearly public domain. I wouldn't trust anything else at all from this user. -- ferret (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dizzlessportsmatrix

[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you teach me how to use this website right without violating copyright? I don't know how to find licesening for the stuff I'm uploading and the closest thing I can tell you for the music is that I bought it online. Dizzlessportsmatrix (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dizzlessportsmatrix: Only upload stuff you have a legal right to upload and license. Did you buy the copyrights or the right to freely sublicense? I highly doubt it, check the fine print.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed everything to the best of my ability and knowledge but I can understand if you still come to a conclusion of banning me. I apologize for the trouble I've caused on this site and I acknowledge the fact that I don't deserve the privilege to edit. Dizzlessportsmatrix (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dizzlessportsmatrix: For each and every one of your uploads, you have claimed to be the author and given a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license for content for which you are not, in fact, the author and not authorized to issue such licenses without documentation via VRT. You have been given plenty of information to help you come to the conclusion that you should not be doing that, ask any lawyer. Did you not learn anything from your first two blocks? See also en:WP:COI and en:WP:F.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get that I shouldn't be calling myself the author but I don't know where to source the licensing, would I ask the schools for the sources? Dizzlessportsmatrix (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If i'm too young to understand copyright and licensing I probably shouldn't be uploading on wikipedia in the first place. I just wanted to help my school get more credibility. Dizzlessportsmatrix (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought because it stayed uploaded for so long without warning I did have right to the license because usually it gives you a warning if it's not lisence Dizzlessportsmatrix (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dizzlessportsmatrix: This sounds like honest confusion (major confusion, but honest) on your part, so I'd rather not see a block. Would you agree to the following:
  1. Do not upload anything to Commons or Wikipedia for the next six months.
  2. Somewhere during that time, or at least before you do any more uploads, read en:Copyright, en:Public domain, and Commons:Licensing.
Jmabel ! talk 20:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will i still be able to edit pages without uploading content on them? Dizzlessportsmatrix (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dizzlessportsmatrix: Yes.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Just no uploading new files (or overwriting existing files) for 6 months, and a promise on you part to read what I linked here before you resume uploading. Will you agree to that? - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thank you Dizzlessportsmatrix (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Egorov123

[edit]

Egorov123 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploaded what seems medical commercial website images but claim that they are his own work. I have marked them for deletion but could an administrator verify them? Pierre cb (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Last warning sent. Yann (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block

[edit]

Block user Ssorraa (talk · contribs), user casting personal attacks, also see abuselog. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Insult removed) Ssorraa (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --A.Savin 08:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

user:200.39.139.4

[edit]

Trolling— vexatious re-adding of offensive messages on closed discussions Dronebogus (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a year. Was blocked before, and clearly not here to help. Yann (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Designermadsen

[edit]
As precedents, ColorfulSmoke was blocked 17:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC) by Mdaniels5757 with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page", pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 29#ColorfulSmoke and was ultimately blocked indefinitely, and Alex Neman was blocked 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC) by Yann with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page" pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 34#Alex Neman, and Mommy Debby was blocked 20:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC) by Jmabel for "Vandalism: + repeated incomplete deletion requests. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=957080538#Mommy_Debby" (now archived to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 117#Mommy Debby).[reply]
Designermadsen made this deleted edit on or about 5 August 2024 (UTC): not including reason, year, month, or day; not creating the subpage; and not transcluding. I reminded him of his mistake and warned him in this edit 23:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC), creating User talk:Designermadsen#Category:A Place to Hotel Esbjerg. He did not reply. He did it again in this edit on or about 21 October 2024 (UTC), and I again reminded him in this edit 16:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC). He did it again in this deleted edit on or about 22 October 2024 (UTC). He did it again in this deleted edit on or about 30 October 2024 (UTC). He did it again in these edits ending 14:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC). He still has yet to reply to me. Please block him, as "We cannot work here with people who are not willing to follow our procedures, in particular for deletion requests."[reply]
sorry to hear. Greetings Kent Madsen. (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I know you've warned the user before, but (speaking of incomplete processes) you don't seem to have notified them that you've brought this to AN/U. Or am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 23:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Sorry, I was on the way out the door and didn't get the chance to. I've done it now.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Sorry to hear i been a neasuents to you people.
I wasn't aware of the warnings and I am going to comply with it for the future. Greetings Kent Madsen. (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising account

[edit]

SETUMISMO-CONLAVIDA-OFFICIAL\FRANCISCO JAVIER GRANADOS MARTÍN (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  seems to be an advertising-only account, see User:SETUMISMO-CONLAVIDA-OFFICIAL\FRANCISCO JAVIER GRANADOS MARTÍN, File:SETUMISMO CONLAVIDA OFFICIAL- “FRANCISCO GRANADOS MARTÍN”.png, File:Ballarin Churriana.jpg, and File:DANZANDO POR LA VIDA OFFICIAL™.jpg. Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Everything is now deleted. No activity after warning, so I do not block him now. Taivo (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hhhhhhhgrgi

[edit]

Hhhhhhhgrgi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is a new user uploading unknown or copyvio material. He is possibly a sockpuppet of blocked Miguel Inigo Mercadal2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  as Hhhhhhhgrgi modified File:Red sky in eastern philippines the morning before a super Typhoon.jpg, from uploaded by Miguel Inigo Mercadal2 and on deletion request. All uploads should be deleted and the user blocked. Pierre cb (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I blocked Hhhhhhhgrgi indef. and Miguel Inigo Mercadal2 for a month. Yann (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wildvepr

[edit]

Wildvepr (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continues to licence laundering, I tagged some of uploaded files copyvio already.(File:Hemopneumothorax.jpg etc.) This user got warned "next time you upload a file that violates copyright, you will be blocked" in this September. Now needs block. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. @Ta-tea-two-te-to. I have to dispute your comments on copyright violations, since the sources of the files clearly state that they are distributed under a CC license. In detail:
1.File:Elbow arthroplasty.jpg - on [1]. Specified - "For all open access content, the Creative Commons licensing terms apply." This article is in the public domain.
2. File:Hemopneumothorax.jpg - on [2]. Specified - "This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License"
3. File:Sterling Bunnell, MD.jpg - When I uploaded the file, this article was in open access and "For all open access content, the Creative Commons licensing terms apply." was applied to it. The article became restricted regardless of me. How would I be able to get the file from a non-open source source then?
But File:PMC4620775 medi-94-e1722-g002.png, File:Use-of-local-anesthesia-with-1-lidocaine-and-1-100-000-epinephrine-solution-for.png really uploaded under licenseCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial NoDerivatives 4.0 International'.
But as a new member of the community, I did not know such features of the division of the CC 4.0 license and that some of its subtypes are unacceptable by the community. For reasons unknown to me.
I apologize.
I have no intention of violating the rules of the community. But as a new user, I may not know some of the nuances of licensing, which are especially not entirely obvious (CC 4.0 sublicenses).
I have provided my explanations and apologies to @Jeff G. previous warning about copyright infringement.
I undertake to further know the indicated nuances and apply them in my work. Wildvepr (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. File:Elbow arthroplasty.jpg: It does not specify which Creative Commons licence should be applied to this specific paper. Open access licences[3] includes Noncommercial one which does not allowed in Wikipedia.
2. File:Hemopneumothorax.jpg: Yes, it says it is under Creative Commons Attribution License. However, clicking the small image on the left of that description will show that Creative Commons licence is CC BY-NC 4.0, which is not usable in Wikipedia.
The problem is that your images have been removed since August and you didn't learn about copyright even though you were already warned in September. However, if you are willing to learn from this, the administrator may be willing to tolerate it. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I did not know the nuances of the difference CC BY, CC BY-SA and CC BY-NC, CC BY-NC-ND which not ok.
And I do not have enough experience to clearly determine this in the source file. I was guided by the signs of "CC 4.0" or "open-acces" how is it to recommend rules for beginners. However, now I have found these nuances in the rules.
However, I will still emphasize that my goal was to illustrate articles to improve the informativeness of Wikipedia, and not to distribute copyrighted content. I promise to be more careful and follow this rule.
The problem with my files that arose in August concerned the features of "fair use". It turned out that these files can only be used in the local version of Wikipedia (which, by the way, is not clearly reflected anywhere in the rules).
As soon as I received the warnings, I immediately gave my explanations and asked for help from the respected Mr. @Jeff G. - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeff_G./Archives/2024/September#c-Wildvepr-20240909134600-Copyright_violations_Wildvepr Wildvepr (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"CC 4.0" is meaningless. It's like saying a brand and a version number without saying what product. - Jmabel ! talk 18:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. 2 weeks block. Was previously warned. Taivo (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Finoskov, redux

[edit]

Would another admin please have a look in at section #User:Finoskov, above? There may be something to it, and I tried to work it through, but have been unable to get anywhere. No other admin has really gotten involved, and this has just been sitting. - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely sock

[edit]

I could be wrong, but the modus operandi of this new editor reminds me of Ssolbergj~commonswiki and their other socks. M.Bitton (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't started deleting old, longstanding categories, after their contents have been moved somewhere else, have we?

[edit]

I recently noticed that @Joeyconnick had manually moved all the contents of a category that had been in existence for well over a decade, to another category, and then called for the speedy deletion of the old category....

In my note on his or her user talk page I described the process of deleting old categories as disruptive, because we have no way of knowing how many third party sites have linked to the old name. I said the deletion of old categories, that may be linked to from third party sites, "makes the commons look fragile, unreliable, and poorly administered."

I undid the first call for speedy deletion I came across. I undid the second one, too.

But I am concerned Joey has gone on a recent binge of undiscussed category moves, followed by a large number of calls for the speedy deletions of categories he or she didn't like the name of, so I am asking for more scrutiny here. They did this 19 times today, alone. Geo Swan (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for administrative intervention here. These are completely reasonable category moves that match the enwiki naming convention. Because categories are so rarely linked to from external sites compared to files, it is not essential to keep category redirects when moving a category unless it is likely that the old name would be mistakenly used (such as a prominent building being renamed). These moves were simply replacing a parenthetical with the word "station"; users are unlikely to mistakenly use the old category name since the new category name will appear in HotCat when entering the base name
Your messages on Joeyconnick's talk page were unnecessarily rude and alarmist. Nothing they did was unreasonable; a simple "hey, I think it's better to leave category redirects" would have been a far more productive message for you to leave. It was only 64 minutes between the first of those messages and posting here, during which time Joeyconnnick was not active and cannot be assumed to have seen the messages. Posting here is a needless escalation of a trivial disagreement. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking one example of category deletion, fr:Kipling_(métro_de_Toronto)#Voir_aussi now has a broken link to Commons. Hopefully someone can go through and check all the deletions to see what else has been broken. @Bedivere who made that deletion. Commander Keane (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. That would not be a problem if the categories were linked to Wikidata... Bedivere (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even when linked to Wikidata it is better to move the category and wait some days before deleting the redirect. Sometimes the automatic moving fails and with the redirect bots will fix this. The new names have the problem that some of them might not be unique as they only have the station name without the town. GPSLeo (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All such requests for speedy deletion are in violation of policy COM:CATRED.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the ones I deleted. Bedivere (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are not automatically renamed based on English Wikipedia.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I've declined cat moves for the reason that it doesn't line up with the other Wikipedias. And I also agree that speedy deletion of old category names is usually not appropriate. Abzeronow (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, these are stations in English-speaking places that have well-defined enwiki naming standards. Unless Commons creates its own naming standards for these stations (that somehow differs from the well-thought-out enwiki standards), it makes sense to match enwiki. The old format (which was also inherited from enwiki) was distinctly inferior. We can disagree about whether deleting the category redirects was appropriate - I don't think these are a case where CATRED says not to delete - but Geo Swan's response was unquestionably hostile. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they are longstanding categories, clearly Commons has such standards. Obviously, it's unlikely to be stable at some Wikipedia if they move them around just now.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has never been any naming standards on Commons - they simply inherited the enwiki name at the time of creation. The enwiki names were changed around 7 years ago as part of a large standardization project. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your free to propose that reasoning in a CfD.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:CP Alvaro Fonseca Vivas

[edit]

A history of out-of-scope PDF uploads going on for nearly 15 years (!); no in-scope contributions. Omphalographer (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Can't believe this was unseen for so long. Indef-blocked. Bedivere (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thuresson: The admin closes the undeletion request discussion without reading the details

[edit]

I believe User:Thuresson closed this discussion about my the undeletion request without reading its details. The closing statement says: "2010 painting by Ahmad Reza Haraji (Q33131643)". However, in the details of the discussion it is clear the painter provided the necessary CC license for the work to be used in Commons. The reason it was deleted before was that it was claimed to be a derivative work. I provided arguments in detail that it is not a valid claim. (Summary of my arguments: There are actually at least four different depictions of Imam Ali in that book with variations but similar details to the deleted work. Which of those is it a derivative of? The referenced book itself describes those as conventional Ali portraits, implying that they are typical. We have at least one very similar depiction in Commons which is indisputably in the public domain. Why is it not considered a derivative of work in public domain, but rather a different particular one in the referenced book? The differences between the public domain work and the claimed original are below the threshold of originality. )

I request the discussion to be re-opened, since there was no clear community consensus about this deletion and we are losing a work of value with no solid reason. I tried contacting the admin on their user page but got no result. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker: If what you want to reopen the discussion, the correct place to do that is Commons:Undeletion requests, not this page (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems). This is a page to request administrative action related to the inappropriate conduct of a user, and for any issue brought here you are supposed to notify the relevant user on their talk page, which it appears you did not do. I don't see any issue here calling for administrative action: you can open the issue on Commons:Undeletion requests yourself, and certainly there should not be any sanctions against User:Thuresson for what at worst is likely to have been an honest mistake. Yes, they probably should have replied to you, but one instance of failure to reply does not rise to the level of administrative action. If you can show a pattern of that happening repeatedly, it might be worth raising here. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel Thank you, this was helpful. I'm not experienced in Commons, so I did not know I could open an undeletion discussion for a file right after the prior discussion was closed. I was not seeking a sanction against the closing admin, I was just hoping to get the action reversed. Best regards. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoyfulTentmaker: yes, if you have a substantive basis to argue that a DR was wrongly decided, and you can't get a response from the closing admin, that's the way to go. Obviously, if the UDR also doesn't go your way, it's time to let go. - Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buttocksphoto and Photord

[edit]

These users are likely the same person. The accounts were created on the same day, and have a very similar uploads. For Buttocksphoto the uploaded photos are a collection of images copied from Instagram, Facebook, and similar sources (examples provided below). For Phototard I have more difficulties to find sources. Yesterday, one of them appeared on the QIC page to nominate a photo (which the other account immediately tried to promote). See also the discussion here. In my opinion, these are trolling accounts created by one individual, possibly someone who was blocked after their actions on QIC (the last similar case from a comparable period was Ptrump16 - blocked for abusing multiple accounts).

Examples of obvious (and probably intentional) copyright violations:

-- Jakubhal 05:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting User:Shaan_Sengupta and User:Yann

[edit]

Please be noted that user User:Shaan_Sengupta are unnecessarily reporting images uploaded under GODL-India and creating nuisance when there is a debate going on the same. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Mifiin He is adding delete request for photos added from Indian Govt accounts. Now discussion is clarified that these images are clearly from Govt accounts, he is not backing off nor trying to be reasonable and understanding and continuing with vandalism attempts. Requesting Administrator's to educate him and make him stop indulging in vandalism. User:Yann is getting reporting to Administrators removed and covering User:Shaan_Sengupta and threatening me for reporting the user for vandalism. Please take action. Thank you. Mifiin (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment For information, I blocked Mifiin for a week. I had informed them that reporting Shaan Sengupta for vandalism because they do not agree with the deletion requests is not OK. This follows Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mifiin and other deletion requests. Yann (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do I say to this report. I tried my best to explain them so many things which can be found in the deletion discussion. When I ran out of patience I just ghosted the discussion. I thought of checking on it today, fixed some of the things. Like I removed some files which were correctly uploaded (were tagged bcoz of mass selection of files). Also nominated some blatant violations for SD. All of them got deleted. This seems to have triggered Mifiin. Sorry, to say this but I have nothing but sympathy for them. Let them get well soon to understand what Commons is. In their words, get them use some commonsense. Thank you. ShaanSenguptaTalk 18:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=962862689"