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
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
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.

User:BMarGlines[edit]

User indefinitely blocked for disruptive behavior. All files deleted, but some have since been restored per the request of the user who first reported BMarGlines, as they were used on the English Wikipedia and seem to be legitimate. --Bedivere (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user appears to be uploading homemade TV station logos, particularly for CW affiliates. These logos are not used on air or on the stations' websites. I have nominated these logos for deletion. This user has already been warned over on Wikipedia (w:User talk:BMarGlines#May 2024). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at one of the so-called station logos for WCAX and it's not accurate either. File:WCAX 2023.jpg I have nominated that for deletion as a hoax. Possible that many of this users uploads may be fan creations of some sort. -- William Graham (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BMarGlines has been blocked at Wikipedia for a week for continuing to upload fanmade logos. They should be blocked indefinitely here at Commons and all their uploads deleted. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I was open to give BMarGlines a chance to amend their behavior. Not anymore. I have blocked them indefinitely and have deleted all of their uploads. If they ever get an unblock, their uploads should be closely monitored. Bedivere (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the removed logos should be restored, as they are in actual use (e.g. the Gray NBC affiliate logos without the peacock). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said "all their uploads [should be] deleted" and that's what I did. I saw no other alternative anyway, given their disruptive behavior. Anyway, if you point me out which ones you want restored, I will proceed. I did review some of them and could not decide some could be legitimate. Bedivere (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored those that were in use on the English Wikipedia. If you need any other restored, please let me know. Bedivere (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a request at COM:REFUND. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]

The user included the whole PDF file OCR-ed content into file description page File:William Francis Norton (1857-1939) memoir.pdf. As Commons is not intended to host document texts nor such content is permited by out guide, I removed the OCR. And this action was reverted by the uploader. I consider this revert to be vandalism. Please, resolve the dispute between us. Ankry (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's within policy, I really struggle to understand why you think this is vandalism. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is reverting proper action without discussion. Ankry (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not vandalism. You could call it a revert war or an edit war, but vandalism is an attempt to deliberately damage/disrupt the project, and that doesn't describe RAN. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At Commons:Village pump no one could point to a specific rule banning the combination of text and image of a document. We have over 100,000 djvu and pdf files with embedded text, as I pointed out prior to the reversal. Ankry directed us to Commons:Guide to layout but has not quoted a specific rule. We are currently migrating older formats for books (jpg pages or pdf for a multi page document) to the djvu format because it contains the text. --RAN (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we delete all the text contained in Djvu files too? I don't see the difference between storing on the page and storing it within the Djvu file, they take up the same amount of space. We also have over 1,000 news articles with text that are not at Wikisource, not every document is welcome there. Can someone point to a rule that demands deleting transcribed text? Eventually we will have a tool at Commons that allows us to create Djvu files directly, and the text and image can be merged. Calling it vandalism is just silly. --RAN (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to take a position on it either way at this point, but what's the actual benefit to it on our end and how do you think it fits with this mainly, if not exclusively, being a media repository? Because it seem like from reading through both discussings is that your only justification amounts to "other stuff" or "but there's no rule against it." --Adamant1 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Assuming this is, indeed, in the public domain, I think this belongs on WikiSource, not Commons, and the text content probably should be moved there. They are much better set up to handle content like this.
  2. @Ankry: in what sense do you consider this "vandalism"? What has been damaged, let alone willfully damaged? I certainly do not believe RAN should be sanctioned for having done this on Commons rather than WikiSource. (Continuing to do this against an apparent consensus might be another matter.) - Jmabel ! talk 05:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, RAN didn’t do any vandalism. It is a content dispute. No block is required. Only if as Jmabel said, if there is a consensus that states this should be only on wikisource or if there is a disruptive edit war (in which case both parties would be possibly blocked or the file protected), but we are not anywhere near that. Bidgee (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jmabel: I doubt if this text is in scope of Wikisource. They require clear information about publication. I doubt if distributing few copies privately can be considered publication (per Wikisource standards). Maybe, I Indeed misuse the term vandalism. I consider reverting a proper action to be disruptive. Ankry (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is allowed on Commons, then the text should be in scope for WS (and vice-versa). I mean if it is not considered published by WS standards, then it should not stay on Commons either. Yann (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is no section on the user talk page, and there is no discussion page on the file talk, the dispute shouldn't be here. GMGtalk 14:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to point out that RAN has been actively trying to disrupt the project, as I have stated on the deletion request of that memoir. The file is doubtfully in scope. Well, then, a remedy was put into effect by RAN so that the file was used in another Wikimedia project: they created a Wikidata item describing the memoir. Wikidata items are in scope of that project if they are linked within the project or from other Wikimedia projects. As a result the item and the file is in scope in both Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. If that isn't an intention to deceive the rules, I am the biggest fool of all. --Bedivere (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Intentionally uploading an unpublished manuscript to Commons against the wishes of the person's heirs and by lying about being related to them has to go against some guideline to. It doesn't that aspect of this has been sufficiently addressed or dealt with on RANs side other then just ignoring it while deflecting either. Regardless, I think the IP editor made it clear in their last email to RAN that the document was private and that they didn't it republished anywhere, which RAN seems to have ignored. So this whole thing clearly goes against at least the whole "republication and distribution must be allowed" thing in Commons:Licensing if not other guidelines. I find it hard to believe RAN didn't know that before uploading the file considering how long they have been an editor for either. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I think some sanction is warranted but I'm not the one issuing it. Bedivere (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have also uploaded several (I've run across many) copyright violations, which I have deleted. Many, tons, of files correspond to irrelevant people and if you look closely, RAN has been using Commons and Wikidata as a FamilySearch-esque repository, creating items for completely irrelevant people, also by stealing and claiming as own work photos that aren't actually his. This is very disrupting behavior. I am nominating a very large number of files for deletion, and while there may be some exceptions, most correspond to these non notable people. What a waste of time and yet they claim otherwise! Bedivere (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(responding to Adamant1) As pointed out multiple times, an unpublished manuscript enters the public domain 70 years post mortem auctoris under United States copyright law. This document entered the public domain in 2010. Commons:Licensing involves releasing a document or image that is under an active copyright under a creative commons license or voluntarily releasing a document that is under an active copyright into the public domain. You continue to misrepresent United States copyright law. Both Bedivere and Ankry are harassing me in tandem, my single edit was not "vandalism" nor should I be blocked for a single edit: "Stop disrupting the project. Do not readd the text or you will get blocked". This is a huge amount of drama over a single edit. See entry below concerning punitive nominations. As to: "against the wishes of the person's heirs", I am sure every book that has entered the public domain is opposed by the heirs, who wish to continue to monetize it. See for example. --RAN (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(responding to Bedivere) Sorry, but I beg to differ about scope. We all have our own pet subjects. I don't see any issue if RAN uses Commons to document history of some (obscure) families. IMO anything historical is within scope, whether it is famous or not. Please do not reduce Commons scope because the subject doesn't interest you. Your deletion request was inappropriate, and I thank you for closing it. Copyright issues should be addressed separately. Yann (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, I think we can agree to disagree on this one. :-) btw could you please reformat RAN's comment above? I didn't respond to that as it would seem like it Bedivere (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had responded to Adamant. Bedivere (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RAN has a rather tendentious habit of replying by starting a new line and then vaguely appealing to a third person instead of actually responding to what the original user was saying. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most fundamental tenet of our Commons:Scope is clear: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose … if it is in use, that is enough ... It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope." (my emphasis added). Please see evidence below of Bedivere retaliating against me/harassing me by nominating a huge tranche of my uploads for opposing him in this debate. --RAN (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Punitive deletion nominations[edit]

@Bedivere: I am experiencing punitive nominations. Are there an actions that can be taken to stop this behavior? It has a chilling effect of participating in debates. About 20 years ago someone did the same thing when I opposed their nomination for deletion of an image. If you want to harass someone, all you have to do is nominate every image they uploaded as a punishment. This is not behavior expected of an administrator, its is a misuse of their status as administrator, to punish someone who opposed a single edit. President Richard Nixon would have the IRS audit people on his enemies list, this is the same behavior, it was part of his articles of impeachment to remove him from office. I do not think Bedivere has the temperament to have access to administrative tools. The punishment appears to be over this edit where the threat "Stop disrupting the project. Do not readd the text or you will get blocked." is made. Bedivere also removed the valid license in their deletion. This is a ridiculous amount of drama over a single edit and a valid interpretation of Commons policy. Institutionalized harassment has a chilling effect on people participating. Is there a policy against using punitive nominations to punish people that have opposed you in a debate? See above where User:Ankry is also harassing me over the same edit. User:Ankry and User:Bedivere appear to be working in tandem to harass/punish me. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) --RAN (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have acknowledged (in the deletion request) that it was an error to make such a big deletion request. I still maintain that many of these uploads are out of scope. Additionally, many of them have dubious or entirely incorrect licensing. I deleted a couple, actually. Will do so when I've got the time. However, I think that calling this some kind of witch-hunting is both excessive and not really correct. Moreover, you say I do not have "the temperament to have access to administrative tools". You have failed to give appropriate responses to the more than appropriate concerns raised here and on the deletion requests. You have failed to respond how are these in scope (disregarding the existence of the Wikidata items you created). I have not contacted nor have even ever message if I recall correctly Ankry - calling this a "working in tandem to harass/punish" you is not assuming good faith and is unacceptable. These statements [1] on a "harassment/punishment campaign" are out of line too. I will keep myself away from this discussion if that helps cooling down this, but I do assert that RAN's actions and statements should be worthy an apology, at least, and getting them retracted. Finally, regarding the removal of the license which you claim I apparently did on purpose, I only reverted your edits to the previous by Ankry. --Bedivere (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most fundamental tenet of our Commons:Scope is clear: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose … if it is in use, that is enough ... It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope." (my emphasis added) As an administrator you are aware of it. It only reinforces that you do not have the temperament to be entrusted with admin tools. You misinterpreted a fundamental policy and you punished/harassed me with massive punitive nominations over a single disputed edit. At that single edit you threatened me with: "Stop disrupting the project. Do not readd the text or you will get blocked. This belongs to Wikisource (if it is actually kept)" this was during an open debate about how much text can be displayed at Commons, or whether text needs to be embedded in a djvu or pdf. This is a serious amount of drama and frightening harassment over what was a legitimate policy debate. --RAN (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Commons:Project scope "any use that is not made in good faith does not count." There's been at least a couple discussions recently about people adding files to other project in order to save them from being deleted and the consensus at least from those conversations was pretty clear that it's not a good faithed way to use something. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem of asserting that you can determine "good faith" means are able to determine the state of mind of the person at the time of adding a document, which can be highly subjective. And we all need to remember: discussions are not policy and essays are not policy and opinions are not policy and emotions are not policy. --RAN (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to throw it out there, I personally probably wouldn't have voted delete on most, if not all, of the images in the DR but that's mainly because they are in scope to begin with. I just think the guideline isn't as cut and dry as your making it out to be and the whole "but the files are in use" thing is particularly weak in this case considering the circumstances. Especially since the at least IMO most of the images are probably worth keeping regardless. Baring ones that are clearly from Ancestory.com and/or don't have proof of prior publication. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
United States copyright case law has ruled that an image is "made public" when it leaves the custody of the creator, it doesn't solely have to appear in a newspaper or magazine. See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg for a cogent discussion of the relevant case law. --RAN (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume "Ancestory.com" is meant to be "Ancestry.com" (and, while I'm at it, that "baring" is "barring").
Do note that under current U.S. copyright law, since the beginning of 2003, publishing any previously unpublished work work cannot gain any protection beyond p.m.a. + 70 for a known author with a known date of death, or 120 years since creation otherwise. So if it was first published on Ancestry.com in 2003 or later, the copyright situation is exactly the same as if it were unpublished. - Jmabel ! talk 04:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Yeah, sorry. Phone editing. Blame the stupid interface. Anyway, ancestory.com was founded in 1996 and as far as I know there's no way to know when exactly a work was uploaded there. Although I haven't looked that extensively into it, but there is a chance that images on the site were uploaded to it prior to 2003. So I assume they would be deleted per the precautionary principle just like any instance where we can't determine the exact publication date. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that though.
I'm going to guess that in some cases some combination of Internet Archive, information about when someone created an account, etc., can help us pin down a date pretty well. - Jmabel ! talk 06:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm sure that's totally the process RAN went through before he uploaded images from there to. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an actual link to the photograph / file on Ancestry.com could be provided, there would be a date, since they do display them. But RAN deliberatedly ommited linking to the files/images. Bedivere (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RAN: where did I say something "solely has to appear in a newspaper or magazine" to be published? Because I don't think that's what I said. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): correctly pinging RAN. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The harassment has now migrated to Wikidata. They nominated a group of entries there, and added: "I think all of RAN's creations should be carefully reviewed". It is a dog whistle to recruit others to harass me with a punitive audit there, since the audit here failed. I do not think that Bedivere should have access to admin tools. They continue to show that they do not have the temperament for the job, they just can't seem to let go of the issue, which was a challenge to a single edit that occurred several days ago. This is extremely concerning since I edit under my real name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 05:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Could you please stop making personal attacks? You also fail to assume good faith and have intensively attacked me, so far without sanction. I will not feed the troll anymore and I will only clarify that such "now migrated" "harassment" thread was started nearly two days ago. I've got enough of this unnecessarily dramatic situation. Someone should take the mop and close these threads with a result, as it seems now, it's getting nowhere. Bedivere (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So "I think all of RAN's creations should be carefully reviewed", "RAN deliberatedly ommited linking" and "I will not feed the troll anymore" are not personal attacks? You don't seem to be offering good faith at the same time you're demanding it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been consistently accused by RAN of a harassment campaign, which is not the case. Bedivere (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kedar.pawarr repeated copyright violations[edit]

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

See the talk page of User:Kedar.pawarr. This user has uploaded multiple image that have been deleted as copyright violations. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Final warning sent, file deleted. Yann (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. After warning the user re-uploaded content deleted per community consensus. One month block. No good edits from the user. Taivo (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interruption from certain bnwiki editors in wikimedia commons campaign[edit]

We are organizing Wiki Loves Earth in Bangladesh 2024 from Commons:Project Korikath. We have received interruption during our CNBanner and Massmessage. The rationale stated is, the organzers (including me) of this campaign is blocked on bnwiki and so I can't organize the campaign on commons.

There is already one RfC on meta regarding my bnwiki block. There is another RfC regarding alleged disruptive editing by the individual who is most actively involved in the aforementioned disruptions. This person threatened one of our contributors over facebook messenger and made him remove (one of over forty) his uploads from our last wikimedia commons campaign, we have evidence of that. The same person got engaged in an edit war a few days ago with our contributor on wikidata. There are several wmf t&s cases against these certain people.

I am not engaging with bnwiki anymore and investing my skill, network and effort for Wikimedia Commons. Since all the campaigns arranged by me or my team is taking place on commons, bnwiki is irrelevant there and demand of removing bnwiki editors from our massmessage list, removing CNBanner from all user with Bangla as the interface language from all wikis (including commons) is completely irrelevant and it disregards the autonomy of other projects considering the fact that a language can't be owned by anyone. I am raising this matter to the community since the insentisity of disruption is raising everyday. If we did anything unconstructive which is harmful to wikimedia commons, we are open to the consequences and discussion. But we don't want anyone outside wikimedia commons to disrupt our wikimedia commons campaigns and projects.--Mrb Rafi (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that bn-wiki can prevent you from putting banners on their wiki and messaging users on their wiki, and that is not anything Commons can affect.
Of course you can message the same users on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 04:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it has been said quite a number of times that non-Commons dramas should not be used to disturb contributors/contributions on Wikimedia Commons. Most necessarily, when those dramas harm campaigns that contribute to the overall development of Wikimedia Commons. Bangla Wikipedia drama in this case should not be used to hunt/kill any activity here however I don't really know how CNBanners work but citing that drama for it to be entirely disabled on Commons from bn-language interface editors feels very odd. ─ Aafī (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shocking to see that two bnwiki admins, ordered a commons admin, on bnwiki, to remove something on commons.
The above-mentioned user's behavior specifically is problematic. He threatened me also over Facebook messenger as I am a contributor of this initiative and told me to stop contributing. I know several contributors who experienced the same. Tanvir Rahat (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case please contact meta:Trust and Safety. This not nothing we can resolve here. GPSLeo (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TA-2023[edit]

TA-2023 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user's uploads need investigation. Unlikely to be own works, and this account might be a sock of S-M-T-AA (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information), now globally locked, for reuploading File:Ali Ahmadzadeh.jpg. Knowledge of Farsi might help. Yann (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Hello, I checked the files uploaded by this sock account and added the required tags to those images that were in violation of copyright, but the IP address 5.127.34.163 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) which is most likely S-M-T-AA sock removes them. Please revert the edits of this IP and lock the files so that the deletion process can be done correctly.

The above accounts are all related to the "S-M-T-AA" account, two of which have been blocked on Persian Wikipedia for this reason, and the rest have the same contributions as the main account.CaesarIran (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Thanks a lot. All accounts blocked or locked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CaesarIran: I reported the new ones to m:srg#Global lock for S-M-T-AA socks and they were locked and the IP was blocked thanks to EPIC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about Mohsen Mousavi 1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)? He also uploaded a picture of the same person. Yann (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you, this account is most likely the "S-M-T-AA" account sock. Also, the mentioned image violates the copyright. Because the IRNA site has copyright.CaesarIran (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked too, files deleted. Yann (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... and locked.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: Hello, thank you for your help, please request the global lock of these three user accounts above, which are actually S-M-T-AA accounts and have been closed in Persian Wikipedia for this reason. Thank you again.CaesarIran (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaesarIran: Have you tried doing this yourself? @EPIC: Do you take requests like this from outside Meta?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, all locked. Yes, it does not matter much, but requests for global locks can be posted at m:SRG for transparency. EPIC (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socks > Millat Ahmad[edit]

Here you can see socks. Can admin here take action based on Meta's CU? AntanO 06:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked two accounts (another is unregistered here). Tagged. Bedivere (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TornadoLGS Is trying to sabotage my page[edit]

He or she claims the photo I’ve uploaded is in violation of copyright. Which is false, the image is my sole property. You guys allow bullying on this app? HaterSlayer357 (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done TornadoLGS correctly identified that HaterSlayer357 uploaded an image previously published on Twitter and tagged it as a copyvio. (It's also very likely out of scope). See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Sharissa_2024.jpg for more details. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Booooooooooooooo!
Thank you! HaterSlayer357 (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidude2243[edit]

User:Wikidude2243 is adding numerous images claiming they are his/her own work. I have identified 3 already that are clear copyvios: [2], [3] and [4] and there are a number of other photos which they clearly did not take, but which I am unable to find the original version for speedy delete purposes. Mztourist (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I deleted almost everything, and warned this user. Yann (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sad moment Wikidude2243 (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. After warning Wikidude uploaded more copyright violations. I blocked him for a week and nominated one more image for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Littlejohn/Garfield Fan 2005 sock[edit]

Globally blocked user trolling userpages. [5] Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done indefblocked, reverted Bedivere (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:RandomGamer6029[edit]

Likely sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Finals123 (cf. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 95#Finals123), given similar editing patterns. Omphalographer (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Obvious DUCK. Blocked and reverted. Tagging as socks. Bedivere (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan el Yoni arenas and Jose de plata[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked, everything is deleted. Yann (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eldin Comic welcher nie online kommt[edit]

This user is conducting an uncalled för edit war, see Category:Rudi Dutschke (hist • logs • abuse log). Here he writes (in German) that he will f*uck me. Please, block Eldin Comic welcher nie online kommt (talk · contribs) for utter profanities. Disembodied Soul (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user Eldin Comic welcher nie online kommt has been permanently blocked on German Wikipedia, see [6]. Disembodied Soul (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done by Aka. Yann (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Denisjcroux[edit]

Denisjcroux (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Uploads some thumb photos without Meta data of French personalities, many of which have been deleted for copyvio and have been reloaded in some cases. All his uploads should be checked and deleted if not conform to GDFL. Pierre cb (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bigote20006[edit]

Bigote20006 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=879899589"