Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Too many Eric Garcias

Hi. Recently I've seen multiple accounts with the name "EricGarcia[number]", so I decided to do a search...

Eric Garcia, EricGarcia0204, Éric García 974, EricGarcia1973, EricGarciaM and Eric garcia camara are older accounts with nothing in their public logs, so not relevant.

EricGarcia0209 has nothing but one copyvio in 2018, also not really relevant.

are all from January 2023. Some have one or two speedy deleted uploads. Some haven't done anything.

I'm not sure how to communicate with a person, who uses a new account every time they log in. TilmannR (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[]

I think a checkuser check may fishing but maybe an admin can see if the deleted uploads are related. They could be unrelated but it's possibly one person who could be getting scared off by each deletion and creating a new account. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[]
(Added files to the list above) Based on the file names alone we can be fairly certain that (most of) these accounts are related. TilmannR (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[]
✓ Done Not highly sophisticated socking, but socking nevertheless. All accounts with uploads are blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[]
@Yann: They are uploading PBS logos again.
TilmannR (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[]
✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[]
@Yann: Two more.
TilmannR (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[]
✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]
@Yann: Ericgarcia2071 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . TilmannR (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]
✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]

@Yann: Ericgarcia2123 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Seems like blocks and deletions aren't helping. What's the next step? IP-block via CheckUser? TilmannR (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[]

✓ Done Blocked, files deleted.
May be a filter could prevent creation of accounts with "Ericgarcia....", but I am not sure, it is a good solution. They may then create accounts with another pattern. Yann (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[]

Cookie030307

Cookie030307 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Hi, I wonder what educational use are this user's uploads... All these files are only used on their userpage (and a few others'). IMO this user confuses Commons with a personal blog. Other opinions? Yann (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[]

In addition, at least some of these are copied from DevianArt without any evidence of a free license at the source, e.g. File:Countryhuman Ukraine Sleepwear (Original, Battle Damaged And Heavy Battle Damaged).png. Yann (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[]
I've asked them for a proper source-link, as they actually linked to the root, which is useless. WRT their uploads: for now I would be lenient, as it's not personal promotion, but seems to be related to a sort of "subculture" or fandom, see Category:Countryhumans. --Túrelio (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[]
No anwser, so Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cookie030307. Yann (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[]

Sänger (talk · contribs)

Despite the happy musical tone of this user's signature, they're angry and name-calling ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) other contributors and questioning their motives. I warned them about their tone on their talk page but their latest contribution to a deletion request shows that they have not understood the message ([6], machine translation: "Wanting to delete that is more of a harassment than a serious concern."). This user needs a temporary block to learn how to be respectful of other contributors. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[]

One is double ;)
It was all about one aggressive action by one wannabe mass-deleter, that failed to read licences, that were clear and obvious given on the pages, and that went awol after thousands of pagers were tagged by them with baseless accusations. That action was without a shiver of respect, if anybody should be reprimanded, it's that wannabe mass-deleter. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[]
With due to their great journey of violating MediaWiki COC, I wonder if we should consider permanently blocking em at least two wikis, and submit a Global ban request at Meta or not? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[]

The user continues disrespecting other contributors: "Wenn aber einE ErbsenzählerIn das pedantisch und legalistisch aufzieht"/"But if a bean counter brings this up in a pedantic and legalistic way". This is not a constructive way to contribute to a deletion request discussion. Can a decision be taken here? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[]

Hast Du den Text außen rum auch gelesen? Weißt Du, worum es da geht?
Ein Bild, das privat angefertigt wurde, und zwar sehr offensichtlich, wurde auf einer eher semiprofessionellen Seite veröffentlicht, ist auf der Seite im Impressum als privat gekennzeichnet. Auf der Konto-Diskussionsseite in der deWP hat Frau Müssig, wie ich zwischenzeitlich feststellen konnte, dies auch schon genau so dargestellt. Das ist sehr glaubhaft, es ist also sehr wahrscheinlich, dass dieses Bild bleiben wird.
Parallel lief gegen den Account der einen Beteiligten, also der abgebildeten Person, bei uns in der deWP eine imho Kampagne wegen vermeintlichem PE. Ja, es gab einen deutlichen IK, der aber mit normaler Ansprache vermutlich gut zu klären gewesen wäre. Und der LA kam vom gleichen Konto, daher mein etwas deutlicherer Stil. Und ja, ich habe schon öfter gehört, dass Deutsche durchaus für ihre Direktheit bekannt sind, drumrumlabern liegt uns eher weniger.
Auf der Disk der deWP ist inzwischen alles geklärt, das muss jetzt nur noch seinen sozialistischen Gang nehmen und offiziell über VTRS abgenickt, die Sachlage ist eindeutig. Diese eindeutige Sachlage nicht anzuerkennen aus reinem Formalismus halte ich für ziemlich unfreundlich und abstoßend, wer so agiert, muss auch mit einem entsprechenden Echo leben können. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[]

User:Malilibu is a w:wp:SPA whose only edits are bad RfDs

This user nominates random sexually explicit files for deletion as “porn”. Please block before they vandalize any more files. Dronebogus (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[]

@Dronebogus, what has @Malilibu done to deserve your cruel name-calling and labelling? Is it based on your moral code? Have you looked at the definition of "vandalism" recently? Nominating for deletion is not "vandalism". Please ensure that your accusations, if they must be made, are not personal attacks, and/or factually inaccurate. Elizium23 (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]
IMO spam-nominations with the rationale “this is porn” are pretty much vandalism. I respect that you’re trying to assume good faith but commons, I have found, has a… “looser” application of civility rules than Wikipedia. Being extremely harsh is seemingly the norm, even for established users. I’m not endorsing it, I’m just saying how I’ve been treated and seen others treat each other has colored my notions of acceptable behavior. Dronebogus (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]
@Dronebogus: are you refusing to take action and strike out your personal attacks? Elizium23 (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]
I do not see them as personal attacks, or at least personal attacks worthy of being removed, but I’ll remove them since you are so insistent. Dronebogus (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Since @Malilibu is guilty of vandalism, then steps can be taken against them. There are specific user warning templates you can use on their talk page to inform them they have acted against policy. You revert the vandalism without any need for help from administrators. If Malilibu ignores the warnings or continues to vandalize, then you can bring it to this noticeboard. But it appears that you've come straight here. That's not a collegial or collaborative way to approach editing. I'm sorry if you feel strongly about it, but you're putting the cart before the horse. Why should an admin take action on a user who hasn't been properly warned or even interacted with you, other than a perfectly normal {{Vk}} you're posting? If you're responding to a deletion discussion with a perfectly normal !vote then it seems that you accept that as a valid deletion discussion, and not as vandalism. So which is it, @Dronebogus? Is it vandalism or are they valid deletion discussions? Elizium23 (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Huh? You lost me at “perfectly normal vk”, could you at least direct me to the discussion in question Dronebogus (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]

User Edwincas72

Edwincas72 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  This new user has been uploading copyrighted or potential copyrighted photos. All have been marked for deletion and I warned him. However, I just found out that one of these has been a reupload (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gustavo Espina.jpg). Possible sockpuppet. Pierre cb (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[]

Nice Edwincas72 (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[]
@Edwincas72: you marked your own previously uncreated user page with a request to delete the page (that is, to take it back to the uncreated state it was in before you marked it. That makes no sense. It is like putting up a sign saying "Please take down this sign." - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Aja, eres hispanohablante. Por favor, no puedes tomar archivos arbitrarios que encuentre en la web y subirlos a Commons. Si no posees los derechos de autor y la persona propietaria de los derechos esos no ha otorgado una licencia gratuita, no podemos alojarlo. - Jmabel ! talk 04:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[]
By confusion. I warned Edwincas17. A very similar user, all uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]

User:Kiilei and all socks

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kiilei. I can't understand why this user and their socks have not been banned. At the very least, they should be blocked for incivility. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[]

More warning sent, all files deleted as per COM:WEBHOST. Yann (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[]

Deletionist SPA accounts

Uoijm77 (talk · contribs)

Appears out of nowhere and immediately targets one uploader's whole upload history (Rainerhaufe (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) ) for deletion (mostly as speedies, until they were reverted). The deletion rationale is the same, yet they do them all as individual DRs (which of course, makes them harder to oppose and allows the odd ones to slip through).

The rationale is "Old photos in new books are to be judged as dated from the book's publication, no matter what argument can be made for the age of the photo".

Then as soon as they get the one INUSE image we had for a notable topic deleted, they speedy the Category:DRG Class E 80 as "CSD C2 (unuseful empty category)". Obviously contentious, as the category and topic are notable, it's just that they've deleted the only content we've been able to find for it.

This is stretching AGF awfully thin. Even to those who accept this as within "the letter of the law" for copyright it's a very hostile action against one uploader, and using an obvious sock account to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[]

The author of the discussion is trying to discredit me. In many cases my justifications differ. Inserting all the artwork is difficult because the allegations are different. Accusation of conspiracy, alleging that I am acting against uploader, is getting paranoid. Editor uploaded hundreds photos and tells that it was published 70 years ago witout evidence. He often disregards copyright. The author of the discussion always defends the legality of the photos, claim that all the old photos were definitely published immediately without evidence. Well, it shows that defending people who break copyright is more important than people who demand that these rights be respected. My objections most often relate to the fact that in many cases the only evidence of publication is books published 10-20 years ago. I don't deny that the photos are old. However, the photos from 70 years ago did not have to be published at the same time. The author of the discussion and uploader don't understand this. Ts that so hard to understand? Don't rely on presumptions. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Copyright is not based on one or another editor arbitrarily deciding whether it is a promotional photo, a factory photo, or just a photo taken for private purposes. --Uoijm77 (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Which was your earlier account? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Tycuca (talk · contribs) - I lost my password to this account, please a block that old account, I'm unable to use it because I don't remember my password. I had no other accounts before. I couldn't find any information on how to recover the password anywhere. Unfortunately I had to create a new account. I'm very sorry. --Uoijm77 (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Hast Du das Buch vorliegen, aus dem die Abbildungen, augenscheinlich aus alten Veröffentlichungen, abgescannt wurden? Dort wird doch bestimmt stehen, woher die im Original sind.Das sind jedenfalls offensichtlich keine Bilder aus Privatbesitz, die vorher nie veröffentlicht wurden. Warum glaubst Du, dass die noch nie veröffentlicht wurden? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[]
I looked through the books from which the some photo was scanned. In many cases there is no date of creation of this picture. Also in the description in the books there is no information that there is supposedly a factory photo here. It is not known when the photo was taken. In my German books, under some photos there is a note that they come from a private collection. In addition, the entire content of the book is copyrighted by the publisher. In addition, the entire content of the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Besides, many his photos have been removed, as you can see from the discussion archive. Uoijm77 (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[]

image-manipulator

Big baboon 272 (talk · contribs) had 6 uploads, all of them showing en:Marsupail species of the genus Murexia and all claimed as own work. As the first 5 were uploaded already in 2021, they had quite a lot of on-wiki usage in many projects. Only yesterday, when an :en-article created in 2021 by the same user about the Murexia species en:Murexia xenochromus came under suspicion to be a hoax, see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murexia xenochromus, the uploads of this user were scrutinized.
Result: the 5 images from 2021 were blatant copyvios from a 2020 unfree scientific paper. However, the 2022 upload File:Murexia xenochromus specimen.jpg, used to illustrate the above mentioned hoax-article on :en, was found to be a deliberate and uncredited manipulation of an image, File:Speckled dasyure (Neophascogale lorentzii) .jpg, which shows a completely different species.
In the face of such unscrupulous behavior, I propose to indefinitely ban this user from Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[]

Excommunicado.
Delete all uploads, revert all other project edits unless they can be sourced immediately. Indef ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[]
✓ Done Indef., last file deleted. Yann (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Please see enwiki Admin Noticeboard for a discussion there on this editor. Interested parties are invited to contribute. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 23:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[]
✓ Done. Now globally locked. Taivo (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]

Groupir !

24.185.206.49 20:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[]

"Final warning"? When? --Túrelio (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[]
28 August 2014‎. 24.185.206.49 21:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Thanks. But that is so long ago that IMO it does not really count. His currently nominated upload is from 2018 and not a blatant copyvio, but likely an error of judgement. --Túrelio (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[]

User:EugeneZelenko

This guy is such an avid deletionist that he appears to never do the easiest possible kind of checking before jumping to the conclusion that, for example, the logo of a company or publication with a Wikipedia article on it.wikipedia is an "Unused trivial logo" that should be deleted, even nominating logos that are COM:INUSE for deletion that way, and he never responds to discussion threads about his lazy, wrong deletion requests. Some examples: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo rivista il Mulino.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo GZ su 2 linee.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhongtianbiao.png (deleted for not having a license, without the deleter addressing COM:TOO), Commons:Deletion requests/File:Casdapro (logo).png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Society6-logo.png (required just slightly more research), Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TheOleRazzleDazzle (somewhat less obvious, but "Unused charts. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful." is not a deletion reason and the claim of "Out of scope" was lazy). I also point you to Commons:Deletion requests/File:2018최광모(사복) choi kwang-mo(suit).jpg, in which he lectures a user with thousands of uploads that "Commons is not private photo album." I think it's important for him to be warned that if he does not start doing even the most obvious due diligence before giving false stock deletion reasons for files that are in use, are logos of companies or organizations that have Wikipedia articles about them or are personal photos of users in good standing with hundreds of contributions or more, he risks being suspended from making deletion requests. And the fact that he's a bureaucrat should mean that he's held to a higher, not lower standard. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[]

Also note Commons:Deletion requests/File:Treble clef and Bass clef.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:20181028 vinstrekord danska foretag (44870929734).jpg. And before someone argues that I'm not "assuming good faith," this is a pattern of behavior, ignoring responses to his deletion requests and blindly assuming he knows that files are useless without understanding what they are (which I assume must be the case with the treble and bass clefs) or checking whether a company or organization is actually notable. There is no basis for assuming good faith here. There are other users whose good faith is obvious because they withdraw deletion requests when shown to have goofed. Everyone goofs; that's not the issue here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[]
I see people use the whole "Should be in SVG if useful" thing in deletion requests for logos quite a lot. IMO it's not a valid reason to nominate a logo for deletion. Although the guidelines should probably clarified to reflect the fact that images of logos that aren't in SVG are fine if people are going to called out or reported for using that as a delete reason. Since right or wrong I can see why they would have the impression that SVGs are the "preferred" file format for logos. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[]
If all these logos are so useful and in scope, why they are not used? If uploaders didn't find usage, somebody else need to do so. Please suggest better procedure to solve this problem. Or authors of above comment could take care about uploaded and abandoned files themselves for benefit of project. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]
@EugeneZelenko: There's a project called the name-suggestion-index that uses images of logos that are hosted on Commons. I've uploaded a few images of logos for the project myself in the past. Just because something isn't being used directly on a Wikimedia project doesn't mean it's not being used or isn't in scope. Anyway, like Ikan Kekek said "not in use" isn't a valid deletion reason anyway. It's ridiculous that you don't know that. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[]
How are you a bureaucrat here without knowing that "not in use" is not a deletion reason? Unbelievable! Are you trying to argue that every file that's not currently in use on another wiki should be deleted? Shaking my head. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]
 Comment I think that what Ikan Kekek said above very much applies here: "the fact that he's a bureaucrat should mean that he's held to a higher, not lower standard." Some of the DR nominations by EugeneZelenko show a miscomprehension of the project scope and are concerning for a user with such amount of privileges (administrator and bureaucrat). Specifically for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo rivista il Mulino.jpg, IMO none of the arguments by EugeneZelenko are valid. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]
  • I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that «the fact that he's a bureaucrat should mean that he's held to a higher, not lower standard», and indded I may have stated something to that effect before. In practice, however, regular users are terrified of admins for those hold the power to block us. The only defense is other admins, of course, and sometimes happens that some admins do make the effort to discipline one of their own (and often rightly so), but it’s also often that an admin action, by virtue of being one, is by default presumed correct — and no regular user wants to be on the wrong side of this trouble.
So, do I think that this o.p. is worth following and supporting? Yes, I do. Would I have said as much had the agreeing repliers in this thread so far not included a couple of other admins? Nopes, I’d have not risked it.
As for the matter at hand — yes:
  • D.R.s should not be misused to “fix” uploaders’ carefulness. If it’s lacking a license, then add one, when it’s something obvious like {{PD-old}}, or use {{Wrong license}} as approprate. That’s what we do for a file whose uploader neglect to properly categorise or otherwise curate: This is a wiki, after all, and we are all expected to work on the whole of the repository. Expecting a careless, inexperienced user to get the details right in “their” filepages, and punish them with a D.R. when not, goes against several basic principles of Commons, including COM:OWN.
  • The mantra «Should be in SVG if useful» used as deletion rationale is a bad idea and I’d be happy to see it gone: JPEG logos (and maps, diagrams, etc — unless photos are heavily included) should be tagged with {{Badjpg}}, not sent to the shredder through a D.R., for they can be in scope. Properly exported or drawn PNG (or even GIF) logos etc. are perfectly fine and there should not be a demand to “convert” them to SVG, which often backfires (cf. the many instances of {{Badsvg}} and {{Fakesvg}} caused by clueless people hurrying to obey this unreasonable demand).
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[]

Just for an example. File:SCP-173 Proposal.jpg and File:Class-D Orientation Leaflet.jpg. Two are two images from a CC-BY-SA video game that were proposed deleted for being "corporate documents". Yet he never admitted any wrongdoing on his part for this ridiculous deletion reason. --Trade (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]

 Support some sort of action against user like a warning.
I could find other examples but I wanted to show that there is a pattern to how they would rather put a speedy deletion tag or file a DR than fix newbie mistakes by uploaders. Abzeronow (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Could you please explain how newbies will learn to be careful, if somebody else will clean up after them? After all claiming copyrights over public domain works is violation of author right for name (at least in post-USSR copyrights laws). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[]
IMO it is possible to warn a user without nominating of the files for deletion. Don't we have a procedure for that? {{Wrong license}}? Yann (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[]
If this is proper process in such situations, it'll be good idea to add support for it into MediaWiki:Gadget-QuickDelete.js and MediaWiki:Gadget-VisualFileChange.js. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[]
'Deletion request is a sledge hammer, that's used to scare off trolls, but that's counterproductive for users, that make small mistakes because they are new. If you want to retain users, that make beginners faults, this method is probably the worst thinkable. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[]
EugeneZelenko, you think it's worthwhile to hide PD images because someone didn't include the right license for them? Is being dedicated to removing the largest possible number of useful, usable images on the site not incompatible with being an admin/bureaucrat here? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Each public domain media must have proper license and source according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory and Commons:Essential information. File tagging and deletion requests are not end of the world, but tools that provide time to fix problems. What is right procedure for that and how to integrate it into existing tools are subjects for constructive discussion. For your reference, originator of this thread uses deletion requests in non-obvious cases and some people tag problematic media with {{No source since}}. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Tagging a file with the extreme insult of a deletion request is something to be avoided, at least for new uploaders. That's one of the biggest shows of assumption of bad faith towards the uploader possible, AGF is the very opposite of such behavior.
You should help those uplo0aders to licence them properly by giving them hints about what to do, not by slamming them in the face with a deletion request. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Deletion request or tag explains what is wrong with media and what need to be fixed. How about copyrights violations tagging and deletions for new users: are these also manifestation of assumption of bad faith? Same question for cases involved Commons:Freedom of panorama and Commons:Derivative works. If not, what is principal difference with moral rights (part of copyrights) violations for public domain media? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[]
A real copyvio and a wrong attribution of a PD-file (probably because the upload interface suggested this) are in different universes, they are not comparable at all.
No real harm is done, if a new uploader just took the suggestions of the interface for uploading as fine, had no interest in diving deep into uncharted territory of licencing legalese, and attributed a PD-file with CC4, an innocent error nearly everyone could make, something that should be resolved by friendly hints and help.
If someone really uploaded a copyvio (see for example here) that's something different, that should be dealt with with more oomph and less friendliness.
A DR is utter unfriendliness, it's a slap in the face, it has absolutely nothing in common with helping but with frightening. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[]
A lot of files seem to get deleted simply because the uploader used CC4 instead of PD-file when they uploaded the image. It's kind of a ridiculous way to handle things. There should really be an across the board guideline/policy that people should just change the license on a file if it's possible to instead of nominating the image for deletion. Especially in cases where the copyright is clearly expired. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Eugene, if you think stating that I also make errors in deletion requests is relevant to your case, let's stipulate: like everyone else, I am human and make errors. However, I pay attention to discussion in the response threads to my deletion requests and have withdrawn several DRs that have been shown to be erroneous. So far, I've never seen you reply to any response thread to any of your deletion requests, let alone admit to error or withdraw any DRs. Moreover, you are a bureaucrat who's been on Commons since 2004 without somehow knowing basic guidelines, such as that "not in use" is not by itself a deletion reason and files that are obviously PD should not be deleted just because of erroneous information on the file page (I at least hope the latter is a guideline); I started paying attention to COM:DR only because a couple of years ago, loads of files in use on Wikivoyage, where I am a bureaucrat/admin, were being deleted without notice and then with sporadic notice before notifications improved. I plead guilty to being a non-expert on Commons deletion policies and practices and copyright laws. But what's your excuse for bullheadedly engaging in destructive, disrespectful behavior that violates policies you should know like the back of your hand? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[]
I asked about constructive discussion above of procedure, not personalities, so please try to do so. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[]
You were the one who opened this line of discussion by stating that "For your reference, originator of this thread uses deletion requests in non-obvious cases". If you think I deserve a warning for my deletion requests, start a new thread. The constructive discussion of procedure in this thread has included suggestions for you to stop requesting the deletion of PD files, do at least basic searches to see if the subject of a prospective deletion request is covered by an article on any Wikimedia site, stop routinely using stock reasons for deletion that are irrelevant ("Should be in SVG if useful") or potentially insulting (lecturing a user with thousands of good uploads that "Commons is not private photo album"), pay attention to and sometimes reply to comments in response threads for your deletion requests, and withdraw ones that are clearly erroneous. Speaking of which, I call everyone's attention to Commons:Deletion requests/File:2021-01-15 12-37-54 ILCE-7C DSC01514 DxO (50962597091).jpg. At least you replied to the discussion thread this time, but will you withdraw the DR now? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]
Thanks for that unbelievable DR, that's pure vandalism. Did EugeneZelenko even spend a single second with this file before making this completely bogus DR? There is no valid reason given, it's pure and simple vandalism to nominate that file for deletion. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]
Files had and still have multiple issues: meaningless name, no reasonable description, no categories and no {{FoP-Belgium}}. Sorry, I did not notice coordinates. But may be critics here would say something about quality of mass import in this particular case? Or why nothing was done for almost two years to avoid any possible confusions? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]
Those issues could have been solved by other means than deletion request. And those issues are now being addressed as they should have been by other users. And it usually doesn't take much time to categorize a file imported from Flickr, I do that as part of my routine maintenance work. You could even be bold and improve the files yourself. Abzeronow (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]
Nothing of those is by far a reason for deletion, why did you use a DR as first contact? Why do you want to deter users witrh such extreme measures instead of trying to help them? Why do you so desperately want to shove users away? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]
You repeated word lecturing for second time. Please try to read you own statements here and think that may be you are doing the same? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]
If you're talking to me, you deserve lectures because you are persisting in acting in bad faith and giving inappropriate excuses for non-constructive behavior. A user who's uploaded thousands of good images does not deserve to be suddenly subjected to a scolding lecture that "Commons is not private photo album" because of one selfie that's not currently in use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]

 Support some kind of action. Per the comments already made about why there needs to be something done here. I'm not a big supporter of how EugeneZelenko responded to Ikan Kekek in his last message either and the DR that Ikan Kekek linked to is a complete train wreck. I make mistakes myself sometimes. Especially with making bad deletion requests since it's not a super clear cut thing to begin with, but it seems like there's seriously chronic problems with how EugeneZelenko handles them and I haven't any attempt on their part to even admit the errors. So screw it. Sanction them and move on. If this was a normal user they probably would have received a warning and been blocked by now, at least temporarily if not perma. This level of incompetence from an administrator/bureaucrat/longtime user is just inexcusable though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]

 Support Based on the recent answers by EugeneZelenko ("well they also make mistakes so why shouldn't I") I approve action. The behavior in DRs that lead to this discussion and the answers provided have shown that EugeneZelenko is not trustworthy and should not be a bureaucrat or administrator. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]

How does "de-admin" even works on Commons? Shouldn't the vote be in a seperate thread? Trade (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]
See Commons:Administrators/De-adminship which points to discussing the issue here. But to be fair, the policy only mentions removing adminship "as a result of abuse of power". I don't think this quite applies here. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]
IMO a desysop is still premature at the moment, and I would rather they take all the feedback above seriously and be more careful in their deletions and deletion nominations going forward. But in practice, an RFDA can happen any time the community believes an admin falls short of the standard required. This is an example where the chief allegation was simply that the admin was bad at their job. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]

 Support - warning only, EZ has been around for a long time so was bound to make mistakes, atleast he nominated images he wasn't sure of instead of just deleting them, also i find it odd we still delete image based on their format, why? just because one format apparently supersedes another, doesn't make the previous format irrelevant, we can have different formats of the same image you know? they are not taking up space anyways. Also whoever wants a de-adminship because of this is not fit to be on this project. We want admins de-sysopped here for only one reason alone, abuse and nothing more. i see no abuse here...--Stemoc 20:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]

User talk:Sikander

User talk:Sikander has tagged several own work photos from JReynolds00 for deletion for no reason.142.167.26.214 02:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]

Pinging @Sikander properly.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]
I also notified the other parties on their user talk pages, as you should have done.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]
@Jeff G.: Thank you for the ping. Metadata for the photos show copyright is held by "Thru Lucy's Lens" (for example Siobhan Coady, Lisa Dempster, Pam Parsons, Scott Reid) and user JReynolds00 has uploaded other photos with no metadata but with verified VRT permission (for example Brian Warr, Carol Anne Haley). So, I hope the tagged images also have permission from "Thru Lucy's Lens" but if they don't, then my understanding is that Commons cannot host them. If the uploader has permission from the copyright holder, then VRT is required for verification (hence the request for "Please provide evidence of permission"). Regards. // sikander { talk } 🦖 03:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]
@Sikander: You're welcome. I warned the uploader.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]

User:Lean Gemer

Lean Gemer is insulting me in Spanish because I tagged some files. This user was indef blocked in Spanish Wikipedia. Taichi (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]

✓ User warned to remain civil. --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[]

User talk:Techworld12

Continued spam and self-advertising despite previous warnings--Trade (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[]

Copy right violation

non of these files are own work all taken from https://way2pay.ir/73294/

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[]

✓ All uploads deleted and user warned by Yann. --Túrelio (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[]

Can y'please investigate those multiple suspected users this instant before banning 'em permanently because they kept uploading audio files containing copyrighted music after ignoring violation warnings?

The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 11:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC); edited: 11:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[]

✓ Uploads deleted and both indef-blocked by Herbythyme. --Túrelio (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Thanks. Feel free to do that again if they keep coming back.
The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 12:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[]

bludgeoning discussions by User:From Hill To Shore

Earlier User:Túrelio started a discussion on Commons:Village pump/Copyright about if human-created LR-records are sufficient proof that images were freely-licensed at the time they were uploaded to Commons. For whatever reason From Hill To Shore decided to insert themselves into the discussion and make it about deletion discussions when the conversation clearly had nothing to do with them. I subsequently told Hill To Shore as much. But they continued to side track the discussion by explaining the deletion process to me, even after I asked them multiple times to drop it and said twice I don't care about doing a deletion request. Yet Hill To Shore is clearly unable to get the point and won't stop inserting themselves into the conversation so other users can give their opinions. I don't know what their deal is or really care, but the stick waving is rather Tendentious regardless. So I'd appreciate it if an administrator could tell them to drop it and stop beating dead horses about things that have nothing to do with the conversations they are participating in. It really shouldn't have to take someone saying 4 times that they don't care about something before Hill To Shore gets the point that the person doesn't care about it. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]

Nothing to do here. @Adamant1: You should stop reporting people here because you don't agree with them. This is clearly harassment. You will be blocked next time. Yann (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]
How exactly is this harassment? It had nothing to do with me disagreeing with him. I asked him multiple times to stop bludging the discussion by bringing up irrelevant talking points to me that I said I don't care about, and he continued doing it. So I reported him. He could have just ended it when I asked him to and there wouldn't have been a problem. In no way is that harassment. I should be able to tell someone I don't care about something and don't want to discuss it without them forcing me into continuing to talk about it. You really don't seem to know what harassment is though. It also really seems like you have a hair up your ass about me being blocked for some reason. If I'm being honest your behavior actually seems like harassment since you keep showing up in random things I'm involved in that have nothing to do with you and your clearly targeting me by doing it. Really you should have just dropped the petty BS when the last ANU report you opened went nowhere. Why not go threaten someone else and let someone else who actually knows what the guidelines are deal with this? It has nothing to do with you and I have zero urge to rehash things. I should be able to report people I'm having problems with without you threatening me. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]
To give my side of the story, my only interest is Adamant1 ceasing with the accusations of bad faith editing, as is a basic requirement of our civility guidelines. I believe the conversation on the Village Pump speaks for itself. For reference, here are the difs;
  1. Adamant1's accusation of bad faith,
  2. my defence of my actions and request not to make accusations of bad faith editing
  3. Adamant1's repetition of bad faith accusation and edit to reduce it to a "small" accusation of bad faith
  4. A more direct request from me for the accusations to stop
  5. Adamant1's defence of the accusation not being an accusation
  6. My final request to stop repeating accusations of bad faith
All I have wanted here is for Adamant1 to stop this incivility. Coupling accusations of bad faith while asking someone to "drop it" is not exactly the best way to allow a conversation to end. It basically guarantees a response from the other party to defend against the accusation. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]
Two things
  1. I said unliterally reverting an edit that there is currently a discussion about "seems like bad faith", not that it is bad faithed. The reason I said that is because I didn't want there to be any questions later about if reverting the deletion requests was the right move or not since other people might have thought they were fine and they can't be put back. It had nothing to do with accusing you of anything. I just didn't want there to be any confusion about it later if the reverts were made before the edits were adequately discussed.
  1. Your assertion that all you wanted was for me to stop the incivility is clearly nonsense. You only brought up that you thought it was uncivil in your last or second to last comment. 99% of the discussion revolved around your insisting that there be informal deletion requests and me telling you I didn't want to do them. It's not on me that you were unwilling to accept that I didn't care about deletion requests or that you continued going off about them after I asked you multiple times to drop it. You should have just taken the hint the first time. Even if I had of said you where being bad faithed though, that's not an excuse to derail the conversation by making it about off-topic side points that no one cared about or wanted to discuss. Really, I think I was pretty civil about it all things considered. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]
Sure. People can't just join whatever conversation they want and then incessantly insist on talking things that are off-topic either though. I could really care less that From Hill To Shore participated in the conversation. It's that what he was saying had nothing to do with the discussion and he refused to get the point about it. It's also not forum shopping to report someone for bludgeoning. The report has nothing to do with trying to re-litigate the original conversation. What would I be forum shopping over anyway when I agreed with @Túrelio: that the images didn't need to be deleted? There's literally nothing about the whole thing that I disagree with or think should have been done differently. Except for how From Hill To Shore steamrolled the discussion with irrelevant side points. All I wanted/want was for him to drop the stick so someone could answer the legal question. He refused to drop it after I asked him to multiple times. So I reported him. That's not forum shopping. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]
I don't see the discussion in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#legal_question as off topic. Just because you prefer very complicated situations to be speedy deleted and From Hill suggests having a full discussion where you actually explain things seems directly on topic. You want to hand-wave it away as irrelevant because you want everyone to give you a speedy answer so you can just post a speedy notice and leave it to the admins to solve the puzzle of what the problem is. It is literally about your actions regarding the images in questions and you are reporting From Hill because you don't agree with them and no one else seems to care. Still, feel free to continue name-calling and making up more reports if you think that will help your cause. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]
I've said like 5 times that I was fine with Túrelio removing the speedy deletion request, have zero urge to contest it, and that I think he made the correct decision. What part of that leads you to conclude that prefer very complicated situations to be speedy deleted? Anyway, I don't care that From Hill To Shore made the initial suggestion about having a full discussion. What I have a problem with is that continued to make it after I was clear that it wasn't something I cared about. Which is why I didn't report them the first or second time they brought it up. That's also why I said "Just stop beating the dead horse and move on. I'm not going to ask you to drop it again" in my last comment and then reporting him after he refused to. Hell, he literally said "I am not sure how I can "drop it." So I don't know how you claim I didn't gave them multiple chances to drop it before I reported them or that they weren't bludgeoning the discussion. Really, it's completely ridiculous that your acting like I just reported them the second they made the suggestion about having a full discussion. There was like 7 comments between that and me opening this. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]
Ignoring the who started it argument, the discussion trail seems to have finished so is there something more you want? Ricky81682 (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]
ignore him Ricky, he is living up to his name.. he has a horrible habit of making mistakes and instead of owning up, he double-down..I also agree with From Hill's reasoning, as someone who has constantly dealt with Flickr users, those images are fine, Its Flickr that is to blame, its obvious the Flickr user wanted it free but then he added his family images later as well and did not want to put them under the same free creative license as well so he probably tried just changing those images (which is time constraining) and thus decided to make all his images ARR instead (which is much more easy to do)..happens, as a flickr user, their method of licensing is outdated...The Bot is never wrong and with Flickr recently adding licence history, we can see it wasn't...I see no issue here, just Adamant as usual making a mountain out of a molehill..I'll advice him again, he should avoid things he does not understand.. Stemoc 22:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]
The bot could be wrong too but "the copyright on Flickr doesn't match the one listed here" is fine if you want to try to speedy it but everyone in the thread says to make that into a DR so I hope we can all agree that in the future, take it to a DR. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]
I said twice in the other discussion that it was possible I just miss-read the licensing history on Flickr's side. I also haven't done anything to contest Túrelio removing the speedy deletion request in the meantime either. So I don't really see how I'm not owning up to my mistakes or doubling down on anything. If anything, I've been pretty clear that it was probably a mistake and accepted the outcome. As well as the points people have made about the legal aspect and bots. This whole thing is really a lose lose. If I had of contested the speedy deletions being removed by turning them into DRs I would have gotten the same flack that I wasn't owning up to my mistakes or doubling down on it that your giving me for accepting Túrelio's decision and saying I probably read the licensing history wrong. @Ricky81682: , I'm perfectly fine with that. As the saying goes hindsight is 20/20. I don't think DRs are necessary in this case though. I'm more then willing to accept Túrelio's decision to keep the images and leave it at that. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]

User talk:Wasiu sodiq olamilekan

Continued spam and self-advertising --Trade (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]

I have given them a warning about out of scope photos. It might be enough for now - if they persist a block may become warranted Gbawden (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[]

Special:Contributions/105.66.133.25

The IP "105.66.133.25" should be permanently blocked. The user behind it seems to have no will to work constructively. I discovered massive vandalism in the Category:Animals of Germany, which unfortunately went undetected for several months. The second edit of this IP was also massive vandalism.

Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 07:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[]

Thanks for your attention. However, this IP had 2 edits on Commons in November and none since then. As IPs usually change daily, it wouldn't make sense to block it now, eben though it was on a vandalistic spree in November 2022. --Túrelio (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[]

Can someone block them please? They clearly aren't here to edit constructively. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[]

✓ Done by Ymblanter. --Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[]

Block user

MOHLEAOSONDWN 2300 (talk · contribs)

Sock puppet of ChengLx123 223.197.252.76 08:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[]

I suspect the IP is an LTA themselves. Not sure about the target. Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[]
aren't they all? that said i'd wager this guy and this guy is the latest Moh lol and this one of the older ones and another going back a year and two more, probably even "moh"........ weird trend of others to add a lot of images in a span of 1-3 days...odd, almost bot-like..may need an RFCU.... Stemoc 10:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[]

User Planet Work Force Terraforming

Planet Work Force Terraforming (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  This user uploads tons of images that seems related to terraforming but are in fact useless junk. His discussion page is just a rambling text that make no sense and a warning seems unlikely to stop him from further uploadings. An Administrator should evaluate the case but for me all of them should be deleted and the user blocked. Pierre cb (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[]

Block and delete the lot. This is junk, they seem unwilling to make any case that it isn't junk. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[]
✓ Done User warned, copyvios deleted. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Planet Work Force Terraforming. Yann (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=729577240"