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
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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

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.

Again User:Finoskov

[edit]

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

After the end of his first blocking he continued his behavior, to a greater extent than before. I think he has not recognized his mistakes. He wrote a comment with his signature in a template. See here.

Last weekend I spent many hours correcting errors which he made in the Mulhouse Museum categories. I only did the decades from 1870 to 1930. This week he ruined the work. Of course, he did not engage in any discussion on any of the points.

Now he obviously tried to solve one of the problems with "of the Musée" instead of "in the Musée". But he still put these categories under categories "in museum". That cannot be right!

Two points:

  1. 20 Reverts. Last weekend I had made changes (from wrong to right) and written edit comments. He made reverts (from right to wrong) without comments. That doesn't work! Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. With a closer look: Often I removed the category in this museum. Sometimes he made exact revert, ignoring that some pictures were not made in this museum. Sometimes he added the category of the museum, ignoring that (example) Category:1920s automobiles of the Musée National de l'Automobile cannot be a subcategory of Category:1920s automobiles in museums because some pictures were not made in museums. I don't know if it's okay to press the revert button to make a hidden change. It looks like an attempt at deception for me. This must be multiple misuse of revert.
  2. He didn't move categories properly. He created new ones, moved the content from the old ones to the new ones, and made quick deleting requests on the old ones. Example: old Category:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) and new Category:Panhard & Levassor 20 CV Sport Type X29 Labourdette torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30. He also simply blanked the category discussion page, see here. This carries the risk that the discussion page will be deleted together with the category. This must be misuse of blanking talk page and misuse of Commons:Rename a category. Other examples: 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, 1900s, 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s.

I request: A block for a longer period than the first time. If possible and usual on Commons: A ban for specific areas for a long time. Perhaps for the areas of creating categories, moving categories, renaming categories, emptying categories, suggesting for quick category deletions, changing main categories or subcategories, and reverts. Or generally for everything to do with vehicles or vehicle museums. Buch-t (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buch-t: I am sympathetic, but not all of the above edits look at all obviously wrong. For example, at [1]: what exactly is wrong with adding each of the following to Category:Alfa-Romeo type 8C 2,9 B biplace course (M.N.A. 1118)? Please reply under the respective bullet points for any where you think I have it wrong.
So for this edit, I see one pretty obviously correct change, one other that looks correct, one other that is not a well-named category but looks otherwise correct, and one that is, indeed COM:OVERCAT. If that is typical, this does not suggest high competence on Finoskov's part, but is not usually the sort of thing over which someone gets blocked.
It is really hard to go through a laundry list like the one you posted above and try to work out whether someone's edits or good, bad, or (as it appears from this one) somewhere in between. This took me over 5 minutes just to evaluate on edit in an area where I don't normally work and it came up "not great, not awful." I would much rather see you take 3-5 specific edits of his that you think are wrong and break them down like I did above. In other words: if this is what you want us to look at, please do the heavy lifting yourself instead of making an admin spend an hour on working out whether you are correct.
As for the category moves: yes, that is very wrong, and might merit a block all on its own, especially if he won't promise to stop. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I followed up on that last (about the category moves) at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Finoskov&diff=prev&oldid=973625389. - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will give more details of 3-5 specific edits tomorrow (European time). --Buch-t (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More details to the first 5 reverts.
I have visited the museum in Mulhouse and also the 3-month-exhibition in the museum in Kassel, Germany.
Remember: I wrote edit comments when I deleted wrong categories. He wrote nothing when he reverted me. --Buch-t (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Finoskov: all of this looks very wrong on your part, especially putting way too broad categories under particular museums that might have an exemplar.
Blocks are intended to be preventive, rather than punitive. If you promise to stop this now, and you do stop, I see no need for a block. If you persist, I would advocate either a 3-month block now, to be turned into a year-long block if you come back and do this again, or a complete topic ban from anything about automobiles. - Jmabel ! talk 18:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finoskov wrote on his talk page that he cannot understand your English words. --Buch-t (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Finoskov feels competent to override others' decisions about prepositions in English, but does not understand enough English to follow what I'm saying. Also apparently, he believes that the overhead of a cat redirect is something comparable to, for example, downloading images.
French is about my fifth or sixth language, which is to say I can read it moderately well, but certainly cannot express myself in it significantly better than a Google Translate rendition of my English. @Ruthven: I know you are quite comfortable in both English and French, can you possibly take over this situation, or let me know that you can't so I can look for someone else to ask? - Jmabel ! talk 08:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I translated your message. Hopefully, the pretext of not understanding English won't be used now. Yann (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yann for the translation. I find worrisome that Finoskov sees your message as an "attack", when it's just a warning about a behaviour. Jmabel, would a partial block on the categories ns suffice? Ruthven (msg) 14:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven and Yann: do what you think best. My request to bring in another admin was not strictly a language issue. After my entirely appropriate warning was described as vos attaques, and after what I agree was almost certainly a "pretense" of not understanding me, I was livid enough to impose a long, long block. I figured it should be left to someone else to handle this, because acting out of anger is not generally a great thing to do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look into the details of the case. I will do it later unless someone else block Finoskov first. Yann (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of moving categories Finoskov creates new ones tagging the old ones for deletion (I didn't count exactly, it might have been about 4000 categories). That is massive disruptive behavior because a) one cannot move the cat back if necessary and b) links pointing there from other projects are broken. Therefore I asked Finoskov in 2019 and again in 2023 to refrain from that, but they ignored it. Therefore I herewith request a block only for category namespace for one year. --Achim55 (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: , and this also goes for any other admin: it's two days later, obviously no one else is taking this on, and I'm tired of it dragging on. If it is left to me—and if this sits another 24 hours, I'm going to consider it left to me—it is going to be an indefinite block from category namespace. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Finoskov has not edited since December 23rd, so I don't know if he deliberately ignored our messages, or just took off some vacation. Yann (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: does that mean you are definitely taking this on, and I can "safely" let go? - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finoskov had the opportunity to write here, but did not use it. He wrote on his talk page. He did not write that he will be offline from ... to ... --Buch-t (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeff G.

[edit]

This user reverted all my edits from today, including two talk page comments, without providing any reason. Things unfold as follows: 1) I made report about abuse filter not allowing me to add a category, but my report got reverted, 2) I asked about the revert in user talk, and got got reverted again, 3) I find out that I'm globally blocked as right after first revert a report linking me with LTA case had been made without providing any evidence (fortunately the steward was willing to relook the report and lifted my block), 4) finally I find out that all my recent edits are reverted, e.g. here.

I don't think that I or anyone else should prove that they are not a camel, but nonetheless, here it goes: as anyone can check from editing history of my IP range, I haven't engaged in any activities similar to that of this LTA user. Usually I don't even work on topic areas associated to this LTA user, with the seldom exceptions like disallowed edit to File:Moka 4-OlariPilnik.jpg (an uncategorized image that I wanted to add into a category containing words "road" and "signs"). Also, this LTA user is documented to be from Australia. As you can easily check, my IP address in not Australian.

To me it doesn't seem healthy at all to consider that anyone is this LTA only as long as they make an edit that includes words "road" and/or "signs" (which the abuse filter that I initially reported seems to target). I don't know how much trouble the LTA user in question is causing. If at the end you really must have as restrictive abuse filter then I'm willing to accept that there are a few categories that I can't add. But I don't think that this kind of conduct by Jeff G. should be tolerated.

I believe all my edits from today were legitimate and hence I ask them to be reinstated. I also believe Jeff G. should have their revert right revoked after this obvious misuse of this right. Additionally I'd consider blocking Jeff G. (or any user) who makes this kind of nasty global block requests without any evidence against others users. 2001:7D0:81F8:9A80:AC7F:1A0E:A016:9A84 19:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is rich, coming from indeffed and globally locked LTA Jermboy27. Note that my actions were against 2001:7D0:81F8:9A80:6419:722D:809F:6CF6 (talk contribs WHOIS RBL guc stalktoy block user block log). See their abuse filter log. I am using principles pioneered at enwiki, including en:WP:DENY and en:WP:RBI. Perhaps Special:AbuseFilter/257 has false positives, I don't have access to the content. However, the user neglected to notify me of their report.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. everything else aside, if you don't have access to the content of the relevant abuse log details, you generally shouldn't be responding to those false positive reports unless it is very obvious. Note also that IPv6 users often float around their /64 range, so the fact that the IP changed is not a sign of any intentional (let alone negative) behavior. Is there evidence that this is Jermboy27, especially given EPIC's doubts? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdaniels5757: Just the filter hits. I usually interact with Эlcobbola regarding these filter hits, but that user has been out of action since October. I'm sorry I overreacted to those filter hits, but it seemed no one else was watching such filter hits.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. I have Commons talk:Abuse filter watchlisted. You usually get to the reports before I do, but I do look at that page often. I mostly don't patrol filter hits without reports unless I'm looking for something in particular. But please don't respond to people about private hits that you can't see: then it's not possible to determine whether there's an issue or not. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdaniels5757: Ok, I will not respond there about private hits that I can't see.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eleditor0800

[edit]

Although receiving copyvio deletions and warn, this user continues uploading the same actress' copyvio portraits. Netora (talk) 08:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done blocked 1 month. Bedivere (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HmpxX

[edit]

HmpxX (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theadept (talk • contribs) 04:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have come here directly without trying to contact HmpxX on their TP. Something needs to be done about this user. They just seem to try to get Confirmed tag anyhow without knowing anything about it. Please see this revision at COM:RFR#Confirmed. They marked their request as done trying to show it as if @Achim55 did it. Ping to @The Squirrel Conspiracy, since you too are involved in that thread. Thank you. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if it is a troll or if the user mixed E-Mail confirmation in the registration process and confirmed user rights. GPSLeo (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alecto Chardon

[edit]

Alecto Chardon (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Keeps uploading complex logos as being "PD-textlogo"--Trade (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what could possibly have given you the impression that people "tried" to explain anything to me? This thread here, and Trade posting onto my WP's user talk a few minutes ago, are the first times in regards to this topic that someone has written me a non-template message. None of the messages posted on my user board have veered away from an unhelpful copy/paste, and what questions I asked people directly went unanswered. I'd love to get an understanding of the issue, if only someone could actually provide a custom explanation. It's quite misleading to be depicted as someone who is not giving a "response" when no one has bothered to talk to me or guide me at all.
For context, I started this trend of uploading logos after looking at the practices of other video game logo uploaders on fr-WP. For example, we have this file for The Witcher 3 and this one for Hollow Knight. Not only have those logos never been challenged by WP contributors, but I've been able to raise these specific articles to Featured Article quality with those logos in the infobox. So, what gives? I'm certainly not denying that I need a refresher on what criteria make something too complex for the originality threshold, but please give me a hand here and don't leave me in a vacuum. --Alecto Chardon (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alecto Chardon: I strongly recommend that you read Commons:Threshold of originality, especially the sections relevant to countries from which you are uploading logos. If, after reading that, you still need a "custom explanation," please indicate one or more of the logos you uploaded that were deleted that you think should possibly not have been. - Jmabel ! talk 00:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reading material @Jmabel: . Looking at the approved logo examples in Threshold of originality#United States, there are several deletion proposals that I cannot understand. To name a few:
Side note: it's difficult for me to understand the risks or provide counter-arguments, when it's not communicated which arguments apply to each file. I'm also concerned that tackling the 32 problematic logos as a single deletion talk won't leave room for analysis of each of them separately. Best, --Alecto Chardon (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alecto Chardon: much as 32 logos is a lot in one DR, this is a long list of questions about individual files. I personally am not that interested in getting involved in the substance of the DR here, that is not an admin issue. If you have not yet raised the above issues on the relevant DR(s), please do so. If there is a long list of logos most of which you agree probably are problematic, but some of which you think are fine, there are a few ways to go, all within the DR process. (1) If there seems to be a clear-cut case that a nomination is just wrong, you can ask (on the relevant DR page) to have that file struck from the list in the DR. If the original nominator agrees, then that's simple. Otherwise this becomes more like the second option here. Do remember to ping them to try to get their consent on this. (2) If the case is not clear-cut (either in your opinion or the original nominator's), but the issues are not the same issues as the others in the DR, you can ask to have that file moved out of the mass DR to a DR of its own. (Pinging @Trade: I would hope that if Alecto wants to handle some of them this way, you'll be willing to make the separate nomination, since you are clearly much more familiar with the process than Alecto.) It can be struck from the existing DR, and a new DR can be started for that file alone. (3) You can handle it all within the DR; you can start a subsection to discuss a particular file. If there are only one or two in a mass DR, that is often easier than starting more DRs.
I hope that helps.
In any case, this is clearly not a matter that calls for any administrative sanctions at this time. - Jmabel ! talk 19:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I would hope that if Alecto wants to handle some of them this way, you'll be willing to make the separate nomination, since you are clearly much more familiar with the process than Alecto" Sure, if he tells me which files he wants moved and why. Realistically speaking splitting the DR up into 32 seperate pages is likely gonna reduce the number of users wanting to participate in the discussion tho. Trade (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it acceptable with you if i move the discussion to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Alecto Chardon? Trade (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though I see you've already gone ahead. I understand that splitting the DR into 32 pages would be a pain, and I don't think it has to come to that, but perhaps the files could be grouped by which type of liability you think they present (e.g. their font, or their shape), to make it clearer where you think the risks of infringement to COM:TOO lie. Anyway, that's a discussion for the DR page.
(It's she, by the way. Not sure why you would assume I'm a man?) --Alecto Chardon (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect that none of this is in fact the users own work, but rather the copyrighted works of their disclosed employer who is paying them to edit at en.wp. I assume they've made the classic mistake of thinking since they work there, they can just release all this material as own work here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the files look generally in scope. @Grace at ZKH: we do need to distinguish who actually authored these and who owns the copyright of these files. I have no idea how much you understand about copyright law, but unless you are the photographer, what you stated here is not accurate. Copyright would normally belong initially to the photographer and may or may not have been transferred to the company. At this point we'll need the copyright-owner (or a company representative if the copyright belongs to a company) to go through the process outlined at COM:VRT, and we'd also greatly appreciate it if you could change author information to be accurate. In the circumstances, we need the VRT process even if you are the photographer, because I think the suspicion is reasonable. - Jmabel ! talk 00:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem like a response is forthcoming. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox: then feel more than free to nominate for deletion. I suggest using a wording (maybe echoing what I said above) that makes it clear that they can still "cure" these, if they bother to try. - 03:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may do that tomorrow, it's late here and I should be asleep already. I am also going to check on what became of the en-wp discussion aimed at stopping cross-wiki uploads by very new users. Last I looked it was trending heavily in favor of stopping the practice, but clearly nothing has been enacted. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WessyTheBoy54 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theadept (talk • contribs) 04:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has twice reverted an administrator(User:Abzeronow) approved change to File:Flag_of_Haiti.svg without any comment on reason for reversion. Was previously blocked for the same on other pages in April: User_talk:WessyTheBoy54 - Theadept (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done pblocked, indef but will unblock if they respond on their talk. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wales photographs taken on 2024-04-06 and all others based on this template

[edit]

Something happened with {{Wales photographs taken on navbox|2024|04|06}} template. Could someone fix this, please? Thanks in advance -- Wieralee (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in Template:Country label/T. May take a while to sync as it should, but any given page can be purged if this is a problem for that page.
@Sbb1413: I'm pretty sure you introduced this with [2] a few days ago. You might want to review your edits that day on this file and see if you missed anything else. - Jmabel ! talk 19:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I mistakenly deleted the "s" in "Wales" while editing the template, mainly to alter the labels for Indian states to introduce locator maps. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribsuploads) 03:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marokistorique

[edit]

This editor today uploaded several images which are all likely copyright violations. I looked at the last two uploads, and tagged both. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Most of their uploads are either now deleted or in a DR. The user has given up on Commons, which may honestly be for the best considering this reply to one of the early deletion alerts. No new uploads since the wave of warnings. I don't see a block achieving anything. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting people for no reason

[edit]
Personal attack

Hi wikipedia users,just to explain the reason why the owner the acount (@Riad Salih) representing algeria,is chasing my contributions around all Wikimedia's projects. This contributor brings the agenda spreading hate against all things about Morocco to Wikipedia, which is used by his country'sgovernment. A special message to the administrators: Please don't be speedy on handling the requests of blocking membres until you verify its sources. Thanks Marokistorique (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Marokistorique - That's a personal attack - you would need to demonstrate that any of his actions were incorrect, which you haven't' done. You have a history of uploads with insufficient sourcing. It's reasonable for any editor to question your uploads. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vofa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log All files uploaded by the user are duplicates of other files. Incall talk 21:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Incall Have you tried to leave a message in their talk page explaining what is the problem? If the behaviour continues after that, we can consider a block. Ruthven (msg) 11:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, can you give me a template for the warning? Please. I'll keep it in mind. All the best Incall talk 11:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Ms Devil (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log Making personal attacks on DR pages--Trade (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already nominated two of these for deletion. This user appears to be creating maps of dubious value, without giving any indication of what the source for their data is. These are therefore of no real educational value, as it is unclear in some cases what the intent is, and unclear in all cases what the source of the data used to formulate the maps is. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't edited after the first notice to their talk page. No action should be taken unless they continue to edit without responding,I have no opinion on deletion in the meantime. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 05:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not suggested a block or anything of the sort. I'm suggesting these maps should not be here and the user should be gently educated as to the scope and purpose of Commons, perhaps by an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you recommended a block or any other sanction, I'm advising that no action (other than possibly deletion) should be taken unless they edit again. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yousiphh

[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I always use licenses for uploaded files. The latest is no exception. The uploaded files from 2020 will not change my decision to add new files according to the Commons rules. Yousiphh (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yousiphh: You were unresponsive when you were asked: Which criterion in {{PD-Azerbaijan}} does it meet? How may we verify that?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JakedelCañar80

[edit]

AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done El usuario ha sido avisado. Sus últimas contribuciones son del 20 de diciembre 2024 y aparentemente se ha detenido. Ruthven (msg) 13:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

24eeWikiUser

[edit]
✓ Done. In my opinion 6 months is proper length of the block. Taivo (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Чръный человек

[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G. Can you give examples of violations? As far as I can see, it only crops and improves photos uploaded by someone else. Mitte27 (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitte27: See all the redlinks on the user talk page history since the final warning, plus Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 37#Чръный человек and recent DRs.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not commit violations with malicious intent. I usually didn't know that some photos had a problematic status. Actually, I haven't been particularly active here lately, and these warnings are relates to my old activity, even before the first warning. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to say that, in the past, I have actually uploaded great many files here from different sources. I admitted that there might have been problems with some of uploaded files, but I was sure that if something like that would be discovered, the other users would correct or delete that files. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I have uploaded some early photos of Luke Voyno-Yasenetsky, moreover, all these photos were taken more than 70 years ago. However, despite this, these photos were published only in the 1990s or later. Accordingly, they were not free. But I did not dig into these issues at that time. Recently user PereslavlFoto found it and suggested for deletion. And all suggested photos of Luke Voyno-Yasenetsky were deleted. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pal-lon-cin

[edit]

זיו「Ziv」For love letters and other notes 13:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]