Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Note

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

User:Arnold Bartels

[edit]

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

This user is trying to delete dozens of their uploads, which are in high-quality and in scope, under an identical nonsense rationale (“Sorry this picture is not interesting for an encyclopedia“). Obviously G7 does not apply to any of these (last upload was in May) so this seems purely disruptive even if not intended as such. Dronebogus (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I picked three of these at random to look at. They are well within Commons scope. These should all be speedy-closed as "kept" because it cannot possibly be worth anyone's time to go through them all to see if one of them happens to be valid.
@User:Arnold Bartels: Can you explain your intention here?
If there is no satisfactory explanation and this conduct continues, I'd support a block. - Jmabel ! talk 20:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the North of the Netherlands (Friesland) only some journalists are allowed to take photographs. There is a different law here. In Dutch we call that ONDERMIJNING. Arnold Bartels (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think that law is applicable to Commons. We care about copyright and hardcore legal/ethical issues like child sexual abuse, not much else. For example trademark use is heavily restricted, but a trademark too simple to be copyrighted can be freely uploaded to Commons. Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with wikicommons, It's a local problem with the people here. Arnold Bartels (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but Commons doesn’t care about your local problems and you don’t have a right to delete these images because of them Dronebogus (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should have factored that in before uploading the images. It's not like there aren't plenty of images similar to yours from the Netherlands on here already though. So your personal issue with it isn't a valid reason to nominate the files for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arnold Bartels: (1) I take it that all of these stand or fall on the same rationale, so you should have done a mass deletion request, not a series of deletion requests each of which would be decided independently. (2) the rationale you give here seems completely unrelated to the rationale you gave on the deletion requests. It sounds like you are asking for a courtesy deletion because you've discovered there may be some legal issues with having posted the pictures, is that correct? - Jmabel ! talk 00:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if this is correct, can you link either the text of that law (in Dutch is fine) or somewhere it is talked about? I see plenty online on Friesland and ondermijning/undermining, but none of it mentions anything like a photography ban. - Jmabel ! talk 00:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: According to Commons:Country specific consent requirements you don't need permission to take pictures of people in public places there. Although there does seem to be some exceptions that the page unfortunately doesn't go into. I find it hard to believe they would be relevant here though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No point to speculating. I want to see a clear statement from Arnold as to what he's dealing with. If there is likely to be a genuine legal issue, I'd support a courtesy deletion. If not, not. - Jmabel ! talk 01:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I closed all the DRs, and warned Arnold Bartels not to do it again. Yann (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dronebogus and "in use" as a way of avoiding deletion

[edit]

Warning: images linked here are NSFW. - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 May 2024, Dronebogus uploaded a self-made illustration. They added it to Wikidata on the same day. A few days later, they added it to Simple Wikipedia and also Spanish Wikipedia. A few days ago, they added it to English Wikipeda.

Here's the issue, this image is obviously well below the quality of image that is normally used on Wikimedia projects but it is now "in use" so any attempt to delete it will automatically fail. But it is only "in use" because Dronebogus added it to projects themselves. When I removed another piece of Dronebogus' self-made illustrations from Wikidata, they not only added it again, they tried to suggest that I was the one gaming the system.

Please take a look at the quality of File:Reverse ekiben position.png. To call it amateurish would be generous. But I can't ask for it to be deleted because it is "in use" and I can't remove from projects without getting into an argument with Dronebogus. This has already happened on English Wikipedia, where Dronebogus edit warred to keep the image and then accused Just Step Sideways of bad faith actions. I feel that Dronebogus is abusing a Commons rule to keep their substandard self-made images in Wikimedia projects as some kind of trolling or personal joke. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this really is all the content we have available for this, then I'd support INUSE as an argument.
But this is far from impressive behaviour, and it's far from the first time. We are not here as an alternative to DeviantArt et al. These poor quality images are nowhere near the standard we'd like to use and Dronebogus is, yet again, on very thin ice. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at File:Phonesex.gif, File:Spoon position on bed.PNG, File:Illustration-of-Buttjob.png, File:Diagrammatic, non-explicit, depiction of a male performing cunnilingus on a female..jpg. All are arguably even worse than my art which is famously so horrible, and all are in-use and in scope. I understand Enwiki has a very high standard on everything, but it’s hardly the only Wikimedia wiki, and it’s not like Commons is just for Wikimedia either. This might be the only freely licensed depiction of this sex position on the entire internet that isn’t AI generated. And as much as I’m informed my uploads are terrible, awful, no good, and very bad it hasn’t stopped them from being used by other users, for example here and here) (I have never edited either article; feel free to check). And yes, I do add my own images to stuff, but I also believe in W:WP:BOLD and W:WP:AGF. Dronebogus (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, someone still thought it worthwhile to trace one of those to an SVG! Weird.
As I wrote, I would support this one within that narrow context of it being all we have. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn’t an ANI issue. And it certainly isn’t trolling or a “personal joke”. From the discussion at Enwiki: “I am under no illusions that my drawing is particularly good, but there were literally no free images of this subject on Commons and the article was illustrated by a copyright violation that was going to be deleted anyway. I didn’t want to leave a void where the original illustration was so after significant consideration I tried my best to provide at least a passable replacement.” I accused JSS of bad faith because they have acted in bad faith before, but I believe in this particular case their actions were legitimate and their response was adequate and civil. I think all three uses are legitimate— the one at Spanish Wikipedia was a similar replacement, the one at Wikidata was about the same topic, and the one at Simple English was in a relevant section. If you have a problem with my conduct it would have been much less aggressive to simply discuss it on my talk page. Dronebogus (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus I brought this here because this is something for the Commons community to discuss and decide upon. If it is not trolling, why are you adding something that you know is no good to Wikimedia projects? There are countless things on projects without illustrations - that doesn't mean that a bad image should be used. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it’s “no good”. I’m kind of being sarcastic when I say it’s so horrible and awful. In fact Andy Dingley has abruptly flipped around and said my art is actually pretty good when it happens to be SFW. But I have no illusions of it being brilliant and would gladly welcome somebody more talented replacing it. Dronebogus (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
better than nothing. i agree with dronebogus. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 21:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral why there is so many "dronebogus" topics out there in near time?
i checked up the image, and if no copyvio and has purpose to education it is good in my book. if you are not agree, i belive you should request DR for that instead move it to AN/U. you are free to put it in DR, again. and with solid arguements. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 21:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Modern primat I think you missed the point. It won't be deleted because it is "in use". Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to nominate it, be my guest. But it won’t be deleted because it’s in scope. Dronebogus (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like that's kind of the issue here. On the one hand it's worth uploading images that help illustrate a certain subject on Wikipedia in cases where we don't have any. Yet on the other in my own personal experience there doesn't to be a consensus we should do that by way of user generated content. At least not outside of maps or diagrams and even then there's some standards. There's a point where it just becomes "usage for it's own sake" though. Not the particular educational merits of the image as such and I think your veering to much into that territory.
There is of a course a line there where it's not a helpful or productive way to illustrate articles and I think you've repeatedly crossed it by uploading and adding your own illustrations to articles. That's certainly not something I would do. Even for scans of postcards in a lot of cases, because I don't necessarily know what is a "good" images for an article about any given topic. What you probably should be doing is just uploading the images and letting other people add them to other projects if they want to. If you aren't willing to roll the dice and leave it up to the community then you shouldn't be uploading the images to begin with though. Otherwise it just comes off like gaming the system. And it's hard to believe your not doing that at this point considering the history. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you’re mostly right, but your interpretation of community “consensus” is wrong. I don’t know of anyone who objects to users uploading their own work purely on that basis besides you. The reason everyone complains about my work is because they consider it low-quality and amateurish, dislike the sexual nature of it, or in this case find my behavior system-gamey. The main reason I am perhaps over-eager to use my own work is because anything I upload now is meant to fill a particular gap; if people don’t see that gap being filled they will assume it’s just mediocre art. I am extremely hesitant to upload anything else due to recent events (I actually have a drawing I finished before all this happened that I don’t know if I’ll ever upload) so it’s unlikely to be an issue; if I do upload anything in the future I won’t be adding it to another project without express permission from that project. Dronebogus (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know of anyone who objects to users uploading their own work purely on that basis besides you. There's plenty of DRs out there where amature artwork was deleted as OOS. Be my guest and look for them, but I'm not only who has an issue with it and there's a pretty clear consensus that it's usually OOS except in certain situations. But they aren't relevant to this. Anyway, I can understand you wanting to upload your artwork to "fill a gap" but if there's no freely available images out there for the subject to begin with then maybe it's not a gap that needs filling. At least with your personal drawings.
Although I have zero problem with you uploading the images to serve that purpose on our end. Just don't add them to Wikidata or Wikipedia articles on your own. At least IMO that's purely where the issue comes in because it takes away our ability as a project to decide if the images should be on here or not to begin with. Worse case scenario some of your uploads get deleted as OOS. So what though? It happens sometimes and it's not the end of the world. I think people get to personally offended if or when their images get nominated for deletion. So they throw a tantrum or game the system so they don't have to deal with their own rejection issues. It's perfectly fine if not everything you upload ends up staying on Commons though. I certainly don't expect it myself with my own uploads. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I agree with what you’re saying in broad strokes, but I strongly disagree with your argument that “if it was needed it would already exist”. If that was the case then the only things we’d have were free images from a long time ago or from various governments, which unsurprisingly seem to be the only things you upload. Dronebogus (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking purely about the subjects that you keep uploading images of amateur artwork for here. The last time I checked that has nothing to do with historical subjects or the government. Although I think similar rules would and do apply with amateur artwork by users of those things. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re missing my point: if we all thought “it would exist if it was needed”, why make anything? Dronebogus (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Just a quick question - looking back on other interactions between the two of you: do both of you think it's wise to keep trying to work this out here between the two of you? Kritzolina (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about me and Dronebogus or Dronebogus and the person who opened this? If your talking about me and Dronebogus that was really all I had to say and it doesn't sound like we disagree that much about it to begin with. I'm not claiming there's a clear line with it or even advocating for any action here. Simply sharing my thoughts on the matter. I think it's Dronebogus' and/or Counterfeit Purses thing to work out at this point. Honestly, this kind of comes off like Counterfeit Purses is trying to relitigate the whole thing from before when it was already resolved. Dronebogus can and should use their own intuition as someone who works in the areas at question to figure when it's appropriate or not to add their own artwork to Wikipedia articles. Again though, I don't think there's a bright line when it comes to the appropriateness of someone doing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that is this CP trying to re-kindle the last embers of this month’s drama for not really any particularly good reason, plus the fact that they already seem to be following me around to add negative, contrarian remarks about me (like here and here). I’m not as litigious as I used to be so I’m not suggesting a boomerang against a good-faith user who’s barely been editing a year, but they really should cut it out. Dronebogus (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really have a user complaining that another user uploaded media and made use of them on WMF projects? I don't think they are up to anything productive here and should be blocked. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Strong oppose block is not needed. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 17:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why do you think so? Enhancing999 (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think a block is needed here either, per my reasoning above. This should just be closed without action against anyone. Dronebogus (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a block is needed here either but @Counterfeit Purses: really needs to accept the feedback and not waste the communities time with similar ANU complaints in the future. There really should be consequences for filing clearly false ANU complaints. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's quite normal for people to upload images to Common so they can use them to fill holes in Wikimedia projects. Chasing a user's uploads and removing them from use so you can delete them on Commons is not so good. I'd generally say that chasing a user's edits on other Wikiprojects and reverting them is considered bad there, as well. Trying to delete low quality artwork that covers something we don't have a million files for makes Commons slightly less valuable and increases the level of hostility on Commons; it's not a good thing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

[edit]

It is clear from the responses to my posting here that other Commons users do not see Dronebogus' uploads of self-made illustrations as a problem. I understand and I will respect that view. I have also taken the liberty of creating and uploading an alternative illustration (File:Reverse ekiben sex position.png) to increase the choices for other projects. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ледоробыч

[edit]

Ледоробыч (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Recent copyvios after multiple warnings. Quick1984 (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for uploading files. Yann (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Townpmna

[edit]

Another Bobanfasil sock. See #Muhammedfasilc. Jonteemil (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LeeKokSengMoe2024

[edit]

Likely a sockpuppey of LKSMOE2024. Overlap at w:Hollington Drive and also File:Hollington Drive.jpg, see log. Also obvious similarities in the username. The sock account was created the day after the LKSMOE2024 account was created. Jonteemil (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LKSMOE2024.Jonteemil (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Both blocked. Yann (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanlalziki

[edit]

Another obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar, see Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comunicação MKT 2024

[edit]

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

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

User:Altair Netraphim/Disclaimer

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Quickero005

[edit]

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

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

Zothanpuii pautu

[edit]

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

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

Estradadarwin1035

[edit]

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

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

More Yuiyui2001 socks

[edit]

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

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

Ufaizckd

[edit]

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

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

Counterfeit Purses

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

User:188.92.251.201

[edit]

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

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

User:Mohmad Abdul sahib

[edit]

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

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

Zomuanpuii joute

[edit]

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

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

Quick1984

[edit]

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

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

Lallawmzuali ralte

[edit]

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

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

DMA180guy

[edit]

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

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

Illegitimate Barrister

[edit]

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

Note that now the editor has taken to uploading PNG versions of the files which were speedily deleted as exceeding COM:TOO. The prior concerns about attribution still remain for this editors other uploads. I'd almost suggest a preventative block until this user discloses how many other files they've uploaded from other Wikimedia projects that aren't actually their own work. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the supposed issue. If you upload fair use material to local Wikipedias and it turns ot that the material is actually PD/can be hosted on commons, and it is moved to Commons, then there is zero need to attribute you in any way, as you aren't the author, you only uploaded someone elses work, and this "someone else" needs to be attributed - and this has been done apparently. TheImaCow (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is zero need to attribute you in any way Thank you for clarifying that you don't understand the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. Per foundation:Policy:Terms_of_Use#7._Licensing_of_Content, "b. Attribution: Attribution is an important part of these licenses. We consider it giving credit where credit is due – to authors like yourself." This is non-negotiable, and if an editor is stealing other users work, then they need to be banned until such issues can be resolved. If I'm the first one to ever notice them doing this, that's unfortunate, but doesn't change the fact that attribution is absolutely required on all Wikimedia projects per Foundation policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that you are the original author of some US town's logo? Is it truly your work, or did you just took it from https://www.spokanevalleywa.gov/? Do you understand the difference between uploader/author?
- If you are the original author of this work (converting the work to SVG, upscaling it etc dosen't make you the author), then obviously you need to be attributed.
- If you are not the original author, then you don't need to be attributed as the author, as you aren't the author. It's not that hard. People can attribute you as the uploader besides the original author, but it is in no way required neither by policy/TOS/legally, let alone blockable. TheImaCow (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also relevant is w:Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons, specifically for manual moves from English Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons, "A copy of the local upload log — You must state the username of each uploader and the date/time at which the upload was performed". These are not optional precisely because of the Terms of Use. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to wikilaywer, then at least cite the entire section, "You must state the username of each uploader and the date/time at which the upload was performed. This is a strict requirement for the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses."
The file in question is (allegedly) public domain, and therefore dosen't need the username of some person who released the file under that licence - because neither that person nor that licence exists. TheImaCow (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramliani zahau

[edit]

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

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

Ckfrlgud1

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=907631963"