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.

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: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]
Here is my source regarding Dennis Connors: https://www.teamusa.com/profiles/dennis-connors. I assumed Team USA was a government website but if that's not the case I acknowledge the mistake and will be careful moving forward.
Regarding the TEDxPortland logo, attributing it to myself was an oversight. I uploaded a screenshot I personally captured so I mistakenly credited myself. Upon reflection I realize this was incorrect. For what its worth, I found since then that TEDxPortland's website offer logo downloads in their media section so I should of uploaded that in the 1st place.
I appreciate you pointing these issues out and I'll make sure to properly attribute and verify content sources in the future. Hifisamurai (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hifisamurai: What license does "TEDxPortland's website offer?" I can tell you that https://www.tedxportland.com/brand-guidelines offers no license, so their works were copyrighted as soon as (after 1 March 1989 in the case of the US) each was fixed in a tangible medium of expression because that's when the US joined the Berne Convention, whether we liked it or not. So, why did you invent a "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license" for File:TEDxPortland Logo on White background.png in Special:Permalink/1008897179? Also, content from https://www.teamusa.com/profiles/dennis-connors is "© 2025 United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee. All Rights Reserved." That's a committee, not a government. If you continue along these lines, expect to be sued by United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee, Legal Department, 1 Olympic Plaza, Colorado Springs, CO 80909 (see https://www.teamusa.com/terms-of-use section "5. Intellectual Property").   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:05, 21 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]
I don't know whether this deserves any adminstrative action, but I have some doubt that the intended upload of more than 999 photos of a dilapidated distributor box is helpful for the Commons project. Apart from that, the author's term "Bundesglasfaser" is impossible to understand without the author's explanations. Therefore, the file descriptions are very bad. Why not just use the "headline" part from the huge Exif data block ("Schaltkasten und lose Glasfaser zwischen Kanzleramt, Paul-Löbe-Haus und Reichstag")? This would be so much more understandable than "Bundesglasfaser 2025". The deleted category should be emptied, of course. If the author insists on a common categorization for all these files, then this should be done in a personal (hidden) category below Category:Files by C.Suthorn. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is (as often) that this thread probably will be archived after a while without any action. Despite the fact that almost all participants completely or partially agree that the edits by C.Suthorn are problematic at least.
So, what else might prevent C.Suthorn from further spamming Commons? A kind request on his talk page not to do so? --A.Savin 15:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted all the photos in that category. If any particular image turns out to be in scope (I doubt it) they can be restored. Bedivere (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if any other measure, besides a warning, is needed. The user explanation is not really helpful behind the so called mystique of this decayed box. I suggest self hosting a Piwigo to document this local topic. Bedivere (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Suthorn I don't know what's the point of creating another thread when the reason of the deletion of the files is correctly expressed here. I would support blocking as trolling, uploading these files despite the January discussion is obviously disruptive. Bedivere (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked C.Suthorn for two weeks. On top of the out-of-scope uploads, filing a retaliatory AN/U thread with a personal attack is not acceptable behavior. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will ping you Pi.1415926535 but really anyone can help. C.Suthorn uploads use a custom author template that causes a really long text to appear in Media Viewer (used by Wikipedias etc when you click a file). On my phone the text is 45% of the screen and it actually cuts off the preview of the file (and doesn't wikilink to uploader). I would like to discuss with C.Suthorn and don't think it is intentional, but they are blocked for 2 weeks. Commander Keane (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the full text doesn't appear on desktop Media Viewer so it may be a software bug. I can reproduce by visiting on Mobile Special:ListFiles/C.Suthorn and clicking the first picture. I will post on Village Pump instead. Commander Keane (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I found Phab:T378431 (and its duplicate phab:T378732) that deal with this. High priority for 4 months. I won't bother with Village Pump, sorry for the nuisance. Commander Keane (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Metadaten bei Bildern. --AxelHH (talk) 11:29, 22 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]

✓ Done. I blocked him for a week and deleted something. Taivo (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Épine

[edit]

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

✓ Done. I warned the user – (s)he was not warned previously. Taivo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: What's this?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gabegk14

[edit]

Gabegk14 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  The user continued to upload unfree files after a final warning. 0x0a (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bedivere

[edit]

Ich glaube es hackt! Bedivere löscht meine Bilder wider besseres Wissen als "Copyright-Violation". Das ist krassester Misbrauche der "Knöpfe"! C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The automated message included an edit summary calling these copyright violations incorrectly, but the files were deleted as they were out of scope. This is the result of another thread. Discussion may continue there. --Bedivere (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

HingWahStreet

[edit]

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

  1. 17:44, 20 March: collapsed VP discussion with bogus reason https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=1012008466#User_pages
  2. 19:27, 20 March: their disruptive edits were warned by me User_talk:HingWahStreet#c-RoyZuo-20250320192700-Do_not_edit_other_users'_comments
  3. doing it again repetitively. prior warnings are apparently ignored.
    1. 02:12, 21 March special:diff/1012104292
    2. 09:58, 21 March special:diff/1012165369.
  4. removing this report repetitively:
    1. 10:36, 21 March special:diff/1012172245
    2. 10:44, 21 March special:diff/1012174299.

RoyZuo (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added #4 4.1 4.2 .
Block appears necessary.--RoyZuo (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can special:diff/1012189799 these ongoing nonsensical collapse of public discussions please be stopped already? RoyZuo (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you stop your accusement of your stand against other users, it will stop. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 12:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See #RoyZuo and COM:Village pump#Respect and non-disturbance for long-term prolific contributor. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 11:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You already got multiple final warnings on different problematic actions. You did not violate against what the final warning was on. But these edit pattern and how you react on these complaint here does not look like you unterstand the problem and that you are willing to change your behavior. GPSLeo (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same as that of RoyZuo. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 12:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Info I blocked User:HingWahStreet for on month for ongoing inappropriate commenting on the admin boards after been warned the third time this year. I would propose an IBAN between User:HingWahStreet, User:RoyZuo and the "Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer" accounts. GPSLeo (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, per my comment at the other thread [1]. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support an iban between HingWahStreet and both RoyZuo and Anon. HK Photog accounts would be best. Abzeronow (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know what rationales your proposal has or how your proposal contributes to commons. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  1. Many users have been helping with maintenance of Category:Photographs by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1 since the category was created in 2019 (whereas the photographer has been contributing since 2006, predating most people here. there was no problem for over a decade).
  2. I am merely one of the maintainers since a long time ago. examples I can find: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=RoyZuo&offset=20230201181111 .
  3. Life goes on quitely for years. A handful of users are constantly helping. We always see each other in file histories, quietly doing the work. (But I wont name them here so as not to bother them for nonsense.)
  4. Then these hostile users come along and make a big fuss.
  5. Now your proposal: I'd be banned from editing, if these hostile users have edited something first.
  6. 1 month later they come back and with their hyperactivity they edit all user pages categories files, make a big mess, and your proposal will penalise me if I keep doing work I've been doing before these people emerged.
  7. Unlike even small European countries which have a ton of active users, how many users do you know that have the knowledge and passion to handle media that come from Category:Guangdong, involve the use of Cantonese language and other local languages, have a good grasp of how commons category system actually works?
    Even Hong Kong, supposedly an anglospheric city, users from there still keep creating badly titled categories that I will never manage to correct all (can be seen in Category:Men of Hong Kong by name).
So as long as a user is daring enough to keep disrupting, other users will be prevented from doing anything or risk getting blocked?
Or, please explain how your proposal contributes to commons file and category maintenance. RoyZuo (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under the IBAN you can still edit the same files as long as they are not uploaded by one of you. You are only not allowed to communicate directly and to revert each other, if you think that something needs to be reverted that was done by the other user you always have to make a request on the admin board. GPSLeo (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This account's behaviour feels somewhat similar to a past case: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive 19#Yrellag. The account in the old case went dormant after 2023-05-30.
Why does this account reminds me of the old case? They both like to empty categories from files. You can still see 2 thread on this account's user talk page telling them not to empty categories User talk:HingWahStreet#About removing categories. RoyZuo (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, despite some dissimilarity between the two cases, I am now 60% positive that they are the same person, but I cannot reveal the evidence because it involves newspaper reporting. I have a conjecture on why the old case went dormant after May 2023 (because of real world events), and why the account in the new case would be registered in February 2024. RoyZuo (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, using the same phone model with serial number removed from the EXIF data looks very suspicious. GPSLeo (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
lol
G6zLZz2cEPKdEXB https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&namespace=14&newOnly=1&target=G6zLZz2cEPKdEXB&dir=prev
HingWahStreet https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&namespace=14&newOnly=1&target=HingWahStreet&dir=prev
Now I'm 80% positive. RoyZuo (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also can’t help but noticed that HingWahStreet’s post here, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 119#User uploading own pictures over multiple usernames, has the same list as the one in Yrellag’s talk page here User_talk:Yrellag#Anonymous_Users. I think it might be worth it to do a checkuser to find out if this is actually the case. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo @Tvpuppy kudos to you two. I totally overlooked the fact that both cases had uploaded own photos. And Tvpuppy, good catch at the list. 😂
I'll tell you the real world evidence indirectly, and especially Tvpuppy having chinese literacy can easily find out.
On the new account there are links to youtube channel. Google what you see there and you will find newspaper reports. The events reported in newspapers can quite reasonably well explain why the old case stopped in 2023-05-30 and why the new case first registered in Feb 2024. Also, the personality traits described by the news reports explain multiple aspects of the behaviour here. RoyZuo (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately checkuser will not help here as User:Yrellag did not edit in the last 90 days. GPSLeo (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can take a break now. 😂 Having to deal with a hyperactive user is super stressful. RoyZuo (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A final summary from me:
  1. Now everything returns to quietness (for 1 month). I hope these sections dont need my response again and can smoothly lapse into archives.
  2. There are many more users who constantly help maintain the files, such as Velma, Solomon203... Yall can check their contribs for yourselves. There's no problem for any reasonable routine maintenance like DR, categorisation, rename... It has gone on for years. Are yall even aware of these efforts happening under the cat tree cat:Hong Kong before this incident blew up?
  3. But hostile users (plural!) that find every possible means to harass other users, should not be tolerated.
  4. I am disappointed at some of yall for your poor judgment and pandering to these hostile users.

    Whereas I watched from start to end Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 119#User uploading own pictures over multiple usernames, their 1st attempt back in Jan 2025. I didnt respond coz it's trivial as long as no one endorsed their hostility. I only felt the need to intervene (on 7 March) after no one stops their forumshopping everywhere and gaining traction for over 1 month.

  5. Again, huge disappointment at how some users are inconsiderate, insensitive, and disrespectful to other contributors.

    Very few users could promptly point out the privacy concerns and how their actions amounted to stalking.

Thank you GPSLeo for action this time.
Now let's wait to see what happens 1 month later. 😂 RoyZuo (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Annisa Tiara Ramadhani

[edit]

Annisa Tiara Ramadhani (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  The user continued to upload pictures with false CC license despite all warnings, most of which were still protected by copyright. 0x0a (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoyZuo

[edit]

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

Blatantly protecting the interests of Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1 by reverting multiple edits:

Being blocked on enwiki and yuewiki for Wikipedia namespaces just to protect a user's stand. Admins please check his contribs. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 11:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For users reading this, please see
  1. Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2025/02#c-Jmabel-20250301164900-HingWahStreet-20250301145600
  2. Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#c-RoyZuo-20250321102800-HingWahStreet
  3. Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#c-RoyZuo-20250321110800-HingWahStreet-20250321104800.
RoyZuo (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is protecting other users and their hard work a problem on commons? Funny.
Is this user on a mission here to attack and annoy other users? When they are not constructive and collegial to this project, they should stop or be stopped from editing commons. RoyZuo (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are now making statements that are completely ignoring community discussions that this is CURRENTLY NOT CONCENSUS. If you are complaining who's doing such things far before I did it, complain it to LuciferianThomas instead. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 14:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Users please also see Commons:Village Pump#Respect and non-disturbance for long-term prolific contributor. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 11:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a block is also necessary for this user. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 11:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. RoyZuo is a constructive contributor and shouldn't be blocked. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What constructive contributor? This user had made multiple disruptive edits on multiple wikis that are solely for its own personal interests previously:
Also the user had made numerous intrusive comments like these:
Therefore, this user was indef-blocked on both enwiki and yuewiki for editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces for disrupting discussions. The user is now clearly promoting its own personal interests to make everybody trust that what it did is no mistake. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 15:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HingWahStreet, a common thread in all of these prior dicussions is you going after RoyZuo, with no one else agreeing with your view point. Regarding the diffs from en-wiki: These aren't related to the issue being dicussed here, and while blunt, are still civil and explain their stance on the issue on that discussion. Please drop the stick. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alachuckthebuck I'll walk away from this issue and let others make comments (but not decide), but please also call RoyZuo to walk away. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 16:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HingWahStreetSee my response to your ANV thread. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Info I blocked User:HingWahStreet for one month. Discussion on IBAN should take place centralized at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#HingWahStreet please do not add further comments here. GPSLeo (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Generic alien invasion.jpg

[edit]

As it can be seen in the discussion, this is a discussion of whenever the article "Extraterrestrials in fiction" from en.wiki should use the file or not, not so much about the image in itself. I told the user Dronebogus, both here and at his talk page in Wikipedia, to discuss such a removal at the right place, the article's talk page. As the user clearly refuses to do that (he kept talking in the DR and listed the file as "removed" in Wikipedia, so clearly he already noticed the requests and ignored them), I would like to request this DR to be procedurally closed.

Note that the image was being used in an article, and that makes it in scope, regardless of subjetive assesments such as "I don't like it". Removing the file from articles in order to claim that the image is not used and thus out of scope is clearly gaming the system. Cambalachero (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right but while I think a free AI image in the style that UFOs are often displayed in alien invasion fiction may help illustrate this article, I also think that this particular image is not good and not good enough for being in the article. Maybe you could improve upon it and create a better image. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done You could have posted this request at COM:AN Abzeronow (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=1012530949"