Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

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
19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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
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 (index)

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:ManyemaKasongoDescendentEdit

This user has been involved in an edit war over File:Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg and File:Presidential Seal of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg. Whilst I welcome file protection of File:Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg, the version created by Fenn-O-maniC at 05:59, 2021 April 6 is clearly an improvement, and I would ask that the file be protected under that revision, especially considering ManyemaKasongoDescendent provided no explanation for their reverts. I would also ask that the other file be protected as well, using its improved version, and that ManyemaKasongoDescendent be forced to explain themselves. Fry1989 eh? 14:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m very insulted by the disingenuous nature of this message, @Fry1989Fry1989. As I’ve reiterated, this not an edit war. I have asked on numerous occasions to be provided with an official source to justify the revision by @Fenn-O-maniC but this request has been ignored.
The hyperlinks/sources used to justify the revision is from unofficial government websites (leganet.cd and ocongo.com to name a few)
The executive branch of the government in the country in question (Democratic Republic of the Congo), responsible for the execution of law (hence “executive” name), has made clear what the emblem of the Democratic Republic of Congo (see: https://www.presidence.cd/detail-symbole/2)
I will happily revert to @Fenn-O-maniC revision if it is based on up-to-date government documents etc and/or explicit vectorised emblem by the government which is already the case (see: https://www.presidence.cd/detail-symbole/2)
I don’t see why @Fenn-O-maniC usurps what the official government vectorisation of the emblem (see: https://www.presidence.cd/detail-symbole/2)
@Fry1989Fry1989 ManyemaKasongoDescendent (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fourth revision of File:Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg is totally different to the three revisions before and should therefore become uploaded as a new version. Same with File:Presidential Seal of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg. What version is more accurate does not matter, just respect the COM:OW guideline. GPSLeo (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, if this is the case. All vectorisation by @Fenn-O-maniC and @Fry1989 should be uploaded because the vectorisation that they are justifying are completely different to the previous vectorisation on the file.
I would also like to reiterate that the executive branch of government vis-a-vis the country in question (Democratic Republic of Congo) has stated the official vectorisation which is used. The hyperlinks provided by @Fenn-O-maniC and @Fry1989 are unofficial and dubious.
I request you visit the stated official vectorisation, not creations designed to usurp the sovereign emblem of a country in Central Africa…
see: https://www.presidence.cd/detail-symbole/2 ManyemaKasongoDescendent (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have split up the Versions. And a final warning to all people involved: If you start such an edit war again you will become blocked form editing here. GPSLeo (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no evidence that the version used on the website linked by ManyemaKasongoDescendent is the "official" rendition. In fact, it would appear to be the opposite, and that whoever created the website on behalf of the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has chosen to "borrow" the vector version that has been on Commons since at least 2008. Fry1989 eh? 17:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So are we going to address the issue of a clearly improved file being reverted based solely on a source that very obviously leads right back to here, or not? Fry1989 eh? 23:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to keep this open until it is addressed properly. There's no point in ignoring it. The source is flawed. Fry1989 eh? 14:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still waiting. Fry1989 eh? 14:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Fry1989Edit

File:Presidential Seal of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg

This user has been involved in an edit war over File:Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg and File:Presidential Seal of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg. Whilst I welcome file protection of File:Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg, File:Presidential Seal of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg. doesn’t have a protection and @Fry1989 has reverted back to the unofficial vectorisation, contrary to official vectorisation as stated by the Democratic Republic of the Congo (see: https://www.presidence.cd/detail-symbole/2) whilst not providing an explanation for this incorrect reverts. I would also ask that the other file be protected as well, using its the version, and that @Fry1989 explain himself… ManyemaKasongoDescendent (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No reason to start a new thread, all can be discussed in the thread above. GPSLeo (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User King.godratEdit

King.godrat (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  seems to use Commons as a test, uploading and modifying images, including selfies, without reason. He even removed description templates. Pierre cb (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There may be a slight touch of foot fetishism in their uploads too. Wutsje 18:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I reported one of a minor to T&S. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've deleted all but one of the feet pics as copyvios (the remaining one is not a copyvio, I think, and it's in use and I don't know what to do with it). There are two other images, both of which I think are in scope. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that every other "A picture of the feet..." image they uploaded was a copyvio, I think it's safe to assume that the remaining one is a copyvio as well. The use of the image on fawiki is trivial (it's basically a gallery). Omphalographer (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I deleted that last one because of COM:GCSD#F10. Better safe than sorry. Wutsje 21:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not testing obvious duh Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur, the user appears not to be competent enough to edit Commons.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done Blocked for a week, most files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yann: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reactivating complaint archived without Admin actionEdit

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 105#Trying to get to something some admin can deal with was archived without any Admin action being taken. The complaint is clear and without Admin action the Users will just carry on as they have been doing. Mztourist (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mztourist: Thanks.
Pinging @Tm, Dvaderv2 in particular, but really this goes for anyone: it is rarely helpful to categorize narrowly based in complex reasoning about the provenance of an otherwise ambiguous photo. The photo is useless as an illustration of the narrow subject (while it might still be useful as an illustration of the subject of a broader category), so no one is really helped by this categorization. It can be helpful to explain in the description why we might know more than is evident in the photo, but (at the other extreme) it is absolutely counterproductive (producing only arguments!) to express this only in setting a category and leave out the reasoning entirely.
I won't say I've never done the equivalent myself (mostly on things like dating a photo based on the buildings visible in it), but I will say that when I've done this, I've always laid out my arguments carefully, and I've backed off if anyone can show anything like a possible flaw in my reasoning. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My time is precious and iam not waste my time with an user clearly did not knew what are the differences between an M16A1 and an XM16E1 but even so loves to waste other people time.
You claim, in the talkpage of File:UH-1Ds landing during Operation Bolling, September 1967.jpg that i "can't tell by looking at this picture whether they are XM16E1s or M16A1s, the same as in the other photos where I have raised this issue." Really?????
1 - You are talking of the 5 771 × 8 577 pixels image where only you do not see the clearly visible teardrop forward assist, xm16e1 boss, uncaged magazine release, three prong flash hider? But of course it is not an xm16e1.
2 - Or are you talking of the the image where only you cannot see the clearly visible teardrop forward assist and uncaged magazine release with the xm16e1 boss. Or are talking of the visible three prong flash hiders visible under the transparent condoms? except for you.
3 - Or are you talking of the Image labelled by the US Federal Government as an M16A1 and so demanded to know "explain why you (me) have categorised it as an XM16E1 rifle" and when i explained you admited that was in fact an XM16E1 (and implicitly showing that you do not know what is are the differences between an XM16E1 or an M16A1"..
4 - Or are you talking of one image of australian soldiers taken in January 2 1967 or another photo of australian soldiers taken in March 18 1966 were you demanded to know why to know why are those rifles XM16A1 when you can clearly see, in those two images, the teardrop forward assist and\or xm16e1 boss and\or uncaged magazine release and\or the three prong flash hider. This two cases are even worst as i asked you if knew when was the M16A1 standardized, was in M16A1 was only standardized in February 23 1967.
Well this clearly shows that you cannot distinguish between an XM16E1 and a M16A1 but remove Category:XM16E1 rifle and when reverted always demand to know why for no good reason.
For that reason and for continue to wasting other people times i am out of this new attempt on exerting revenge. Tm (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No-one objects to identifications, when those identifications are based on some reasonable evidence – as you've provided in some cases. A partial identification and a known date that limits the possibilities is fine too – no one is questioning these.
But what we aren't going to put up with is the continual edit-warring, and the attitude (just look at your post here!) that you're too important to have to explain yourself to the peasants. Because you're not. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please no personal attacks Trade (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tm: your response amounts to a bunch of arguments about specific photos, and absolutely no acknowledgement of what I, as an admin, called out as a problem. FWIW, I didn't "talk of" or do any of the things you are mentioning here. (Perhaps someone else did, but your comment follows mine, and doesn't ping anyone, so it appears to be addressed to me.) I stated a general principle: contentious matters like this generally don't belong in categories.
You are claiming that you are so expert that no one here can judge your work. That might be true, but insofar as it is, it also means that no one here can judge your claim to expertise, and we don't really have any reason to accept it on faith. - Jmabel ! talk 22:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW Jambel my initial remark were all directed at Mztourist, not you or your actions.
But, alas, Jambel in Wikimedia Commons i never claimed to be or not to be an expert in anything, either explicitly or implied.
I only show that Mztourist does not know what he was talking about or doing but that did not stop him from question others and removing categories and that, on the contrary of Mztourist, i provide proofs of what i said, edit and add .
To Andy Dingley. I tought that us the peasants had already discussed this images to death and that i have provided more than enough evidence to support my edits more than a month ago. So what royal now that is making "continual edit-warring" by reopening this closed discussion?
That is why i will not waste more of my time in this on revenge as well said by its title "Reactivating complaint archived without Admin action." Tm (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Jmabel for clearly stating the correct approach to categorisation. Tm it is notable that you have continually failed to justify why the rifles in File:UH-1Ds landing during Operation Bolling, September 1967.jpg are XM16E1s. Tm and User:Dvaderv2 unless the distinguishing features of an XM16E1 or an M16A1 are clearly visible don't add the category (also don't categorize pistols in holsters), its very simple. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jmabel I'm requesting a block of User:Tm for continued edit-warring of categories despite your clear instructions above. Following your instructions I returned to the various images where categories had been added and removed the weapon categories where the weapon is not clearly visible in the image and Tm then reverted those changes. The examples are: (1) my change [1] and Tm's revert [2], this image was discussed on the [Talk Page] that the gun has attributes of two different models, the XM16E1 and the M16A1; (2) my change [3] and Tm's revert [4], they claim that you can see the distinctive muzzle of an XM16E1, I don't believe the photo is clear enough to make that distinction; (3) my change removing categorisation of a pistol in a holster: [5] and Tm's revert [6] and (4) my changes [7] and Tm's revert [8]. Tm has completely ignored your instructions and clearly continues with their attitude that they are so expert that no one here can judge their work, only a block will prevent further disruptive conduct. Mztourist (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oh, dear. I hate doing this with someone who is often a good contributor, but, yes, I'll block Tm for a week at this time. - Jmabel ! talk 07:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done - Jmabel ! talk 07:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Mztourist (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, User:Tm has objected on their user page. I have no intention of replying there: they are repeating things they have already said, plus claiming Mztourist's actions here constitute "vengeance". If any other admin wishes to engage, feel free. - Jmabel ! talk 16:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stanislov Patrick 473Edit

Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk · contribs)

Another of those miraculous new users who come from nowhere and dive immediately into complex arcana. I've no idea what's going on here, but it's nothing good. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur, their inappropriate edits include this, that, and reversions of the actions of authorized bots.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done I have blocked the user for a temporary period of 1 week, with the option to extend the block if disruptive editing continues. --TadejM (t/p) 14:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done Seeing the amount of disruption, I extended the block. New account, and most edits are pure vandalism. Yann (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TadejM and Yann: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Figub BrazlevicEdit

User:Figub Brazlevic https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figub_Brazlevič , please block this account. it is not verified. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WHat do you mean by "verified" and which Commons policy do you think requires that? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
modern_primat presumably means that given that this is a the name of a well-known person, this account should exist only if it is verifiably that person. Which is true, but if someone wants to pursue it, it would seem that the place to start is a request for verification, not a block! - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are also active on de.Wikipedia which has a working process to verify accounts. I have asked them for verification of the account there. --Kritzolina (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:RevengerTimeEdit

RevengerTime (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Is a problematic user. He abuses Commons uploading all the time unfree files. Look at his talk page and latest uploads please. Other people have been blocked for much less. 186.175.229.250 02:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I warned this user. However some of their uploads were wrong tagged, as they are under a free license at the source. Yann (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you just please block this user already, after I receive a last warning. Hookmeupabit (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think a block is needed at this time. Yann (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Dion ArtEdit

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

Dion Art has made inappropriate comments and has posted revenge votes at this FPC nomination and this nomination of theirs. Any help welcome, please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This user is also highly defensive in reaction to votes against or criticisms of their work, so far always talking back and never conceding that others might have a point or that they might learn anything from any criticisms. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose any administrative action, as of writing this. Their incivility seems to have ceased after I placed a civility warning on their talk page. If they do return with uncivil behaviour, we can always go from there. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The civility warning you kindly added @SHB2000: has been deleted by the user. And is this not a page for Commons admins to post? Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    When they removed the warning, I presumed they understood what was wrong with their behaviour (this is common with some users on en). Someone does need to review their two revenge FPC votes, though. SHB2000 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What are you opposing @A.Savin: ? I haven't asked for a block. I've asked for help. And I did not ask for this user to be branded a fascist by you or anybody. Quite uncalled-for comment. I just want my FP nominations to be fairly judged. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dion Art votes may not be OK, but you are not really clean yourself about nonsense votes and comments, i.e. [9]. Yann (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How dare you call my vote a nonsense vote. I disliked the crop as a poor composition and am 100% entitled to my oppose vote. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "How dare you?" It is not surprising you find little support with such an over bloated ego. *sigh* Yann (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do you believe you have some special entitlement to call my vote a nonsense vote? Doesn't sound like the words a responsible admin would make. It's a sad day when two admins post here - one calling my contributions 'toxic' and the other 'nonsense'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Charles, while this isn't intricately related to this discussion as a whole, my question to you is if you really think it's okay to oppose a nomination from Russia, should FPC ban all nominations from countries where governments have committed horrible atrocities? Many governments have blood on their hands in some way or another; singling out certain countries for political reasons is antithetical to the purpose of having FPs. SHB2000 (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's more a case of instrumentalization rather than some political conviction. As a simple example, not everyone who insults you a Nazi is actually against Nazis. Regards --A.Savin 12:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User ShreenadEdit

Shreenad (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  The uploads of this user seems to be photos he has taken of paintings of Indian historical rulers in a museum. This seems close to copyvio to me but could an administrator decide if it is the case or not. Pierre cb (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • These look old enough to most likely be out of copyright, but they should be credited to their artists (or to Unknown artist), and they should carry at least approximate dates. - Jmabel ! talk 03:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Assuming they took the photos themselves it might be a case that they don't understand FOP rules - I made the same mistake once. I don't see any malice - they are likely a new user who doesn't know better. An RfD would have been better than AN IMO Gbawden (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • FOP is only an issue if the underlying images are copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 15:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MihaiUploadEdit

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

edits seem strange, like contributing in both Malayalam and Romanian. blocked on enwp. RZuo (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RZuo: I can't speak for the Malayalam, but his Romanian looks entirely correct (I'm not native, but I read Romanian pretty well). I suppose there has to be at least one Romanian in the world who also speaks Malayalam! Is there anything else "strange"? - Jmabel ! talk 18:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll admit most of his uploads look like useless low-quality video, but not actively malevolent. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, one of this person's socks was blocked on Commons as Huggingface.co (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done This user is just testing. It is very unlikely this user really knows Malayalam. I sent them a final warning, and deleted the test pages. Yann (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it's not just pages in those languages. the user also created many rather useless empty cats. RZuo (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Links for the empty categories? Mihai Popa Message me! 13:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, please take a look at my Romanian edits! Please collect some links! Mihai Popa Message me! 13:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done Still creating nonsense pages and files. Blocked for 2 weeks. *sigh* Yann (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repeated uploads of clearly copyrighted images by User:MaterialscientistEdit

As can be seen by User:Materialscientist's talk page archives they have a pretty well established history of uploading images that end up being deleted as COPYVIO. Something that at least I have asked them to be more careful about in the future, which from what I remember they blow off. Regardless, they recently uploaded a bunch of images of Lativian stamps. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Latvia is pretty clear that stamps from the country are likely copyrighted since they aren't specifically mentioned in the law and therefore shouldn't be uploaded to commons. To make things worse, the images that Materialscientist uploaded come from a Flickr account for the main postal service provider in Latvia, where the copyright status is clearly "All rights reserved." As can be seen by this image, which Materialscientist uploaded here.

It's pretty clear from that, the multiple uploads of Materialscientist's that have been deleted as copyright violations over the years, and the ambivalent way they treated me about it that they think the rules don't apply to them. So I think they should receive a final warning not to upload copyrighted material again. Either that, or they should just be blocked for repeatedly and blatantly disregarding the guidelines. There's really no excuse for uploading images that are clearly copyrighted. More so considering Materialscientist is an administrator and really should know better as one. Adamant1 (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamant1: If I see it correctly, you have just right now nominated four of Materialscientist's uploads for deletion and a short moment later on you are opening this section at COM:AN/U without even waiting for the outcome of these DRs. I just went to the recently nominated uploads of the talk page history. The most recently deleted one is this URAA case, a file which was perfectly ok at the time of the upload. If you see a real case here, this has to be researched first and then properly presented with evidence at this board. This is disruptive otherwise. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's why I said they have a history of uploads that are deleted as COPYVIO. In no way is my ANU complaint solely based on the outcome of the most recent DRs. Although I doubt there will be any other outcome with the DRs then delete since the guidelines are clear that stamps of Lativia are probably copyrighted and the source for the images (which again is the postal services of Latvia) clearly states they are "all rights reserved." If you want to wait until the DRs are closed as delete though, cool. I'm more then willing to revisit this once that happens. Although I think the ANU complaint stands on it's own anyway. No one who is being at all honest about this would argue that the sources for the stamps don't say they are all rights reserved. What more evidence do you need then that and their history of repeatedly uploading COPYVIO?
And in no way does your single, cherry picked example disprove their history of uploading images that are subsequently deleted as copyright violations. One reason being that they still should have known about and accounted for the URAA before uploading the file. It's not like there aren't DRs like this one where they used an obviously fallacious argument to try and get the image kept in the meantime either. Oh yea, there's also this one where they lied and said the image was created anonymously when the file clearly stated who the author was. This DR has nothing do with the URAA, just them acting like Yugoslavia's law about official materials of state bodies applies to stamps when it clearly doesn't. This DR and this are similar BTW. That's what, 11 files that clearly shouldn't have been uploaded between just those 3 DRs? And MaterialScientist making blatantly false arguments in all of them to. They clearly have an issue with following the guidelines. Either it's intentional or they are just incompetent. Personally, I think they are intentionally ignoring the guidelines since stamps of Lativia are obviously copyrighted. Plus they go out of their way to obfuscate and make false statements whenever their images are nominated for deletion. Seriously, what more evidence do you need then that? If your answer is "more", then I'd like to know how many clearly copyrighted images a normal user could can away with uploading before they are at least warned not to do it again. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody is perfect, and I quickly adjust my edits after a civil comment on my talk. I go by Commons policies, and the one related to Latvian stamps has been changed very recently [10]; be it correct or not, I've missed that update. With all that said, I consider the note above by Adamant1 as a personal attack to a Wikimedia volunteer. Materialscientist (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody is perfect, and I quickly adjust my edits after a civil comment on my talk. Sure, I don't expect anyone to be perfect and honestly I wouldn't have reported you if it wasn't so blatantly with the stamps of Latavia or if you hadn't of acted so disgruntled toward me when I asked you to be more careful about it, which your response here accusing me of personal attacks is a perfect example of by the way. I don't see how you could have just missed that the stamps are copyrighted. Nor does you responding the defense and deflecting way you have about it here and in other places make me think you even care about it. Otherwise you'd just acknowledge the mistake and say you won't do it again. The fact that Copyright rules by territory Latvia was recently changed doesn't matter because the source where you downloaded them from is clear that they are copyrighted. At the end of the day the guidelines are just that, guides. The Post of Lativa the authority on if the copyright status their stamps and I don't see how you could have missed that the images were "all rights reserved." And again, it's a chronic issues that you've repeatedly been unwilling to acknowledge or remedy. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before rushing to blame people, try to understand how Commons deals with copyright. "All rights reserved" merely means the author owns, owned or has some reason to claim copyright on an image. Commons respects that, but applies its own set of copyright rules above that (such as those in Commons:Latvia, which wasn't on my watchlist): copyright might have expired or is inapplicable, or the author has released the image elsewhere, or many other reasons. For example, you'll find zillions of antique paintings on zillions of respectable websites saying that the image is copyrighted, while it is obviously in the public domain. Materialscientist (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before rushing to blame people, try to understand how Commons deals with copyright. I've been nominating your COPYVIO uploads for deletion since at least April of last year and I discussed it with you once already before starting this. So in no way am I rushing to blame you for anything. Your patently false comment about how quickly I started this report aside though, it seems like your attitude about this is that it isn't the job of users to know what the relevant guidelines and laws are before they upload images. Otherwise, can you at least acknowledge that it's the users' responsibility to know what the relevant guidelines and laws are before uploading an image and that ignorance of either one isn't a valid excuse to repeatedly upload copyrighted material over multiple years?
you'll find zillions of antique paintings on zillions of respectable websites saying that the image is copyrighted, while it is obviously in the public domain. I don't disagree with that in general. The source of the Lativan stamps is the official Flickr account of the Lativian postal service, not a personal website of some random collector of Lativan stamps. I'm sure get the difference. If they aren't an authoritative source for the licensing information of stamps they created I don't know what would be. Especially considering there's zero evidence in the meantime that the licensing of the stamps have expired or are otherwise inapplicable. At least from what I understand we always defer to the official source and/or creator of the image work when it comes to how something is license regardless though. At least baring a few exceptional instances that don't apply in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have a very unclear position on a piece of copyright arcana, which very recently changed our interpretation, largely owing to an opinion piece with no cited foundation (Guess who that was by?). Now you're seeking to have an admin blocked because of the "ambivalent" way they treated you.
You really are a nett negative to this project overall. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have a very unclear position on a piece of copyright arcana I'm not really sure what someone repeatedly downloading files from the Lativian postal services Flickr account where it unambiguously says the images are copyrighted has to do with "arcana", but OK. It's at least clear from this and the last discussion where you came at me for similar spurious reasons that your always going to do your little "Adamant1 bad" song and dance whenever you have an opportunity to. That said, I think we'd both agree that people shouldn't be uploading files from official sources that make it clear the images are copyrighted. Sure, you can maybe quibble about the guideline recently being changed, but like I said, it's a chronic issue that Materialscientist has been unwilling to discuss or remedy and there's no way they just missed that the Lativan postal services Flickr account says the stamps are "all rights reserved." Otherwise, they are free to just say so. I'm mine with honest mistakes, but there's zero indication that it was one. Same goes for the rest of the images he uploaded that turned out to be copyrighted. Of course baring ones that involve URAA case retroactively being applied to old uploads, but those are the extremely rare exception as I've shown with the DRs I linked to that have nothing to do with it and there's plenty more that don't where they came from. And here I thought you were holding to admins to the same standards as every other user. Apparently that goes away when I'm the one who files the report. Go figure. It's fine if you think I'm a net negative to the project, but at least put aside the Adamant1 derangement syndrome for a minute and look at the evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Comment I support comments made by AFBorchert and others above. I warned Adamant1 about changing behaviour regarding interaction with other contributors. Yann (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I left you a message on my talk about the "warning. I'll try to be more succinct and/or measured next time. Although I'm not really sure what "behavior" your warning was in response to since you didn't give specifics. Nor do I see any specific examples by AFBorchert or Andy Dingley in this complaint. All AFBorchert said was that I should present better evidence for the complaint, which has nothing to do with my "behavior" and I think I've done in the meantime. In fact I think I've been pretty clear about why I started this and have provided plenty of evidence for why I think Materialscientist should at least receive a warning. I'm fine with people disagreeing with the evidence, but just doing handwaving about how I'm a net negative to the project or writing vague warnings on my talk page about "behavior" that you can't be specific about isn't really helpful. Nor am I inclined to such comments seriously when they are coming from people like you or Andy Dingley who have made spurious accusations about me and my "behavior" in the past that so far hasn't led anywhere.
That said, I would be interested to know exactly what your issue with the actual merits of the ANU complaint are if you have any though. I'm more then happy to provide more evidence if what I've already provided isn't adequate. I think the DRs I've linked to and Materialscientist's comments in the meantime speak for themselves though. Otherwise I'm going have to assume your "warning" and comment here are more of the same old same old personal grievance axe grinding toward me that you seem to have a pretty established history of doing at this point. Instead of anything to do with the actual complaint. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Comment BTW, if anyone wants another good example of why I opened this check out the images of stamps in this and this, all of which appear to have been uploaded by Materialscientist. Both Category:Stamps of Nicaragua and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Nicaragua are clear that stamps of Nicaragua are copyrighted. Yet Materialscientist still uploaded the images and did so using PD-NI-exempt when it clearly doesn't apply to stamps. I've already provided the example where he uploaded stamps from the official Flickr account of the postal service of Lativia that were clearly all rights reserved. Andy Dingley and Yann can deflect from the reason I opened the complaint by axe grinding all they want, but I don't see how anyone can honestly argue he isn't intentionally ignoring the guidelines or the copyright status of the images he's uploading when there's multiple examples of him clearly doing exactly that. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: This board is for the discussion of user problems but not for copyright-related discussions. If you have concerns regarding files in these categories, you are free to discuss this at COM:VP/C or to file deletion requests. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm aware, which is why I'm not discussing copyright. That said, if I nominate the images for deletion and they are deleted I doubt the response to this will be any different. I'm more then willing to do it and re-open this once the files are deleted. Although I don't think it should be necessary since there's plenty of examples already and I haven't anyone else have to follow that standard. Regardless, this is clearly the place to discuss people who have chronic issues with violating copyright guidelines. Your free to disagree that Materialscientist has an issue with uploading copyrighted images, but this the clearly place to discuss the topic of users who repeatedly upload COPYVIO. Again though, I'm fine nominating the images for deletion and getting back to this after they are deleted, but like I said, I doubt you or the people who have commented so far will treat me any less dismissively about it. I've also read through plenty of similar complaints and no one has been treated the way I have been about them. Nor was anyone, at least from what I can tell, told this was the wrong place for the discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you are accusing a user for copyright violations, the examples you give are relevant. Our guidance on Latvian stamps was changed recently by you and Aymatth2 (neither of whom read Latvian, I suppose), while that on Nicaraguan stamps was changed by Aymatth2 with an edit summary of "fmt" (note the "not copyrighted" in the previous version, possibly ignored by the user who added the copyright image). I think accusing people of copyright violations with such examples is bad tone. –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just for the record, I wasn't the one who changed it, Aymatth2 was. For that matter I didn't start the discussion. So if you have a problem with the change the person to blame it on or take it up with is Aymatth2. Although from what I remember you had the chance to object to it at the time. Which it seems like you did, but it's not on me that Aymatth2 made the changes anyway. It's not like anyone else objected to it in the last two months either. So I'm not really sure why your even bringing it up here after the fact. It's not the Flickr account of the Latvian postal service where Materialscientist got the images doesn't say they are rights reserved either.
Like you say, none of us read Lativan or really know the law, but we can all see what the copyright status of the images are based on information we have at hand from the postal services official Flickr account. Maybe you can nitpick not enough people were involved in the conversation before the guideline was changed, but the source of the images says what it says and there's zero evidence that its wrong. Or should we just ignore that even though it's an official source that we have zero reason to doubt and allow Materialscientist to continue uploading clearly copyrighted images of the stamps just because you don't like the tone of me pointing it out? BTW, just an FYI but the main reason I nominated the Lativan stamps for deletion was because of the source saying they were all rights reserved, not because of the guideline. So be my guest and ignore it if you think Aymatth2 went about it the wrong or whatever. I could really care less because it doesn't change the fact that source of the images says they are copyrighted. Which Materialscientist ignored when he uploaded the images. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Materialscientist might have believed the previous version of our guidance. Those pages are often rough approximations of the copyright situation, so uploading a file despite those pages saying they are copyrighted is often OK. Doing that when the source says they are copyrighted requires you to have a good basis for not believing it, and if Materialscientist saw our guidance, they should have stated their opinion on it. But if they read the previous version and missed the change, then I cannot blame them. –LPfi (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, I'd have zero problem with that. Except the reason Latvian stamps were supposedly in the public domain was because official symbols and signs are, which you should know from the conversation about stamps of Finland has never held water. In fact, there's been multiple DR conversations having to do with stamps of other countries that Materialscientist was involved in where the images were deleted by administrators because it wasn't valid. So even if I grant you that he missed the article being changed, he still knew before then that the original reason stamps of Latvia were supposedly PD didn't hold any weight since at that point multiple administrators had already told him as much. Hell, I even told him multiple times that it wasn't valid. Seriously, how many times does someone have to hear something from multiple people and ignore it before it's OK to assume their just acting willfully ignorant about the guidelines? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless I am misreading, User:Adamant1 is asking that User:Materialscientist receive an administrative warning for not having noticed a change to our understanding of the copyright on Latvian postage stamps. That isn't going to happen. Can we close this thread? - Jmabel ! talk 15:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking for a warning because User:Materialscientist repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images of stamps over multiple years (99.99% of them aren't even Latvian stamps BTW!) and continued doing it even after I asked him to be more careful. Including recently uploading images of Lativian stamps from the official Flickr account of the Lativian postal service where the it clearly states the images are "all rights reserved." That's what I want him to receive a warning for.
The thing about him not noticing the guideline changed recently is just a red herring to distract from the fact that the source where he got the images from, which again is the Lativian postal services official Flickr account, says they are copyrighted. It also distracts from the multiple years of him doing it and the fact that he blew me off when I asked him to be more careful about it. That said, go ahead and close this since it's pretty clear no one is going to actually address why I opened it. I'll just open another one in a year when he's still uploading copyrighted images because no one wants deal with it now for whatever reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: Your concerns in copyright-related matters are welcome. This, however, should be handled through the well-known processes. You are wondering why “no one wants to deal with it now” but you failed to present actionable evidence. Please do not “just open another one in a year” like this one without presenting a proper case with compelling evidence. Your final comment implies a lot of bad faith if you assume that you have to come back here within a year. Instead, please assume good faith instead. There are challenging discussions about copyright-related matters all the time. Law, case law and legal opinions can change. Older uploads and honest mistakes should not lead to openings at this board. And a statement “all rights reserved” can be null and void if the material is already in the public domain or was previously released under a unrevocable free license. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
should be handled through the well-known processes. You mean the multiple DRs that have already occurred and the conversation I had with him already? Or are you talking about other "well-known processes" that I haven't made clear already took place and didn't do anything? I'm more then willing to handle it through other avenues, but I've already handled it through the channels I'm aware of they and weren't effective, which is why I brought it here. So what other avenues are there besides DRs, asking the person to stop, and ANU complaints if they don't?
As to your second point, You can look through his talk page and see that there's at least a couple of images a month (if not more) that are deleted as COPYVIO. Including plenty of recent examples. Also, I have zero problem with people making honest mistakes. That's why I talked to him about it first and waited a year while he kept doing it before I reported him. So I'm not really sure what your talking about. The fact is that I went out of my way to allow him to make mistakes and correct them before I opened this. Lastly, Sure, images "could" have previously been in the public domain or whatever. But there's zero evidence of that being the case with the Latvian stamps. Whereas, the source of the images says they are "all rights reserved." Which one sounds more likely to you, that the images are copyrighted because the Flickr account says they are or that they are in the public domain due to some non-exiting evidence that they were previously released under an irrevocable free license? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yashwa EmmanuelEdit

Yashwa Emmanuel (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Continued spam after warning--Trade (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done Spam only, no useful contribution. Yann (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GondolabúrguerEdit

Asking for other people's personal information after their files have been marked for deletion is intimidation. Harassment, crosswiki abuse. Guy is indeff on en.wiki and blocked on pt.wiki see more on en:user talk:Gondolabúrguer Ertrinken (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have hidden the information. Yann (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Andrea PergaminoEdit

uploading copyvio images after multiple warnings, also uploading attack image. see: User talk:Andrea Pergamino ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 20:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done Blocked 2 weeks for uploading attack image. Yann (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=767469146"