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
21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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.

Prototyperspective and "AI Art Application and Improvements Handbook" on Wikibooks[edit]

I am noticing a pattern in DRs and I'm not sure if it warrants admin action or not. If it does, it shouldn't be by me, as I am active in many of these and related DRs.

The pattern is: an AI-created image is nominated for deletion as being out of scope, then Prototyperspective (talk · contribs) adds it to "AI Art Application and Improvements Handbook" on Wikibooks, and then someone notes in the DR that the file is COM:INUSE.

Bluntly, the only thing any of the images on that Wikibooks page have in common is that they came up in DRs, and I am unconvinced that the page is anything other than an attempt to game COM:INUSE.

Looking to get others' opinions on this. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: That looks fishy to me.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: are you saying The Squirrel Conspiracy's characterization of this looks fishy, or Prototyperspective's conduct? - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: The described conduct.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that is an accurate description, then that is certainly not OK. I'd like to see that backed up by diffs, though, so that we don't each have to go searching for evidence ourselves. - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Convenience link: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AI_Art_Application_and_Improvements_Handbook - Jmabel ! talk 01:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I can explain it to you and I've been open about it:
  • that handbook is not a priority to me but when I see DRs I a) sometimes see the relevant AI images and think about how they could be useful in the context of the DR and b) may find spending some time to expand the wikibook worth my time.
  • Nothing at INUSE suggest that would be "gaming it" and if it is I didn't know but I'd then suggest this is made clear there, that page also says "realistically useful for an educational purpose" where the wikibook makes the application and realistic educational usefulness clear.
  • If you don't consider the uses in that book "INUSE" then you can always just ignore them which is already done. While I don't think deleting AI images even when clear usefulness cases have been clarified and remain unrefuted is within bounds of current WMC policy even if they were not used anywhere, if you agree that it would be then I guess it is.
  • Moreover, the book is new and so new images are added as I come across them now, I haven't substantially changed it again for quite a while. And for the Roman Kubanskiy images, those were some of the very few available for illustrating a section and I added all the good-quality images for that application to its section, not just these.
Prototyperspective (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: : Sorry, here are the diffs:

Worth noting that when the Giovanna IV images were deleted, Prototyperspective put the redlinks back in the book, calling it "unwarranted censorship deletions".

I think that all of this taken together paints a pretty clear picture of why the wikibook exists and how it's being misused. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've voiced similar concerns. Nearly every image in that book is, or was at some point, the subject of a deletion discussion on Commons, and it's not because someone's been going through the book to pick images to nominate for deletion, and it certainly isn't just a weird coincidence either. COM:INUSE is meant to prevent the deletion of images which projects are legitimately using, not as a way to "game" deletion discussions on Commons. See also Commons talk:Project scope#Outdated (does not reflect current admin practices): policy amendment for in-scope exceptions. Omphalographer (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nearly every image in that book is, or was at some point, the subject of a deletion discussion on Commons Very false.
I added images based on their relevance and quality so all of them should be high-quality for the described application. I wonder though why people complain about it here rather than replacing the image with a better one if there is one. In any case, current policy hasn't made clear that INUSE only applies to files that were INUSE before the DR but whether or not that is the case doesn't matter to my freedom to use images as I see fit. If you'd like to restrict this freedom then please add a note like Images that are currently subject of deletion discussions are not allowed to be used in any other Wikimedia project. If they are used there they should be replaced by other users and are not legitimately in use. That would be something to discuss at the policy page. I apologize if my edits to the wikibook I started are considered problematic. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I share the Squirrel's concerns about misuse of Wikibooks, and overall advocacy of out-of-scope AI-generated images when they were told many times that such images are not welcome here. Yann (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's not a "misuse of Wikibooks", you and e.g. Squirrel just don't consider the file-uses in it legitimate which is fine to people.
  • Out-of-scope images made using AI software should be deleted.
  • The deletion requests – which usually nominated large numbers of different files at once – and village pump discussions that I think you're referring to had some people arguing for usefulness and use-cases of AI software in the context of images as well as some against such; there is no policy that says that images made using this novel technology are generally not welcome here but it's certainly the impression I get which may or may not be a problem or a good thing for a good future of WMC. I don't indiscriminately explain specific usefulness cases for images in deletion requests but only those where I can see a realistic educational value (e.g. for few images of a long list of files nominated at once) and voted for deletion in many occasions, while Squirrel wrote here and here Due to both the copyright and ethical concerns, I am always in favor of deleting AI art, especially when we have any non-AI generated images that don't have those concerns.. Again, if you don't see this Wikibook's file-uses or uses of files during DRs as legitimate then users have clarified that ignoring them is fine.
Prototyperspective (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm uncomfortable with complaining about someone's advocacy in an actively discussed issue. I could appreciate him being less voluminous, but he's discussing on a live discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Either way, the constant, personal badgering and tirades about it really to stop. It's certainly not a collaborative way to participate in discussions. Same goes for the walls of text with multiple bullet points. @Prototyperspective: please just make your point next time, leave out the personal comments when you do it, and move on. Everyone knows what your opinion about AI artwork being hosted on Commons is at this point. We don't need it screamed in our faces every there's a DR for AI artwork. Also, stop bludgeoning discussions by responding to everyone who disagrees with you. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never made a personal attack. I think you made several against me if you refer to ad hominem. I would see a point about replying too often if it was coming from somebody else but you are just as much replying as me and most of my comments are replies to you, often to correct misinterpretations or twisting of what I said earlier. I noted that I only ever saw you vote delete and the quote above is quite explicit in admitting this even when not considering your comments in regards to AI images in general. I was trying to reduce my volume but I think I'm allowed to make a few arguments when some of my images are to be deleted without even a deletion rationale explanation and unaddressed explicit clear usefulness cases being clarified.
Again, I'm trying to and already did reduce my volume but you are posting as much if not more than me in regards to this subject. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never made a personal attack "The user seems to be fed up with AI images", "The user is opposed to AI images", "that it can be useful is enough of a reason to not ban it based on your unsubstantiated assumptions and quite clear anti AI bias", just to name a few of the many examples out there. I'm not the subject of the deletion requests and I've also repeatedly told you that I'm bias toward AI or artwork. Yet your still repeating that I am and in discussions where my personal opinions about it aren't even relevant. So yes you are and have been personally attacking me.
Also, in DRs like Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated science fiction you made a main point along with adding 9 bullet points that added absolutely nothing to the discussion outside of just being a needless wall of text. Just write a paragraph or two with your main points and leave it at that. There's no need to flood the DR with multiple bullet points. It's just extra noise that comes off like bad faithed Gish galloping. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a personal attack but may be relevant to the DR so I mentioned it to provide context. It can be relevant that you only ever voted for delete on the many AI-related DRs you participated in and object to AI images on WMC in general. Can be not is. In contrast, you made several ad hominems against me such as Your probably one of those people who think Bitcoin is going to replace fiat currency any second now to aren't you? Lmao. to name just one. With comments like these I hope it's a bit clear how my volume is hard to make smaller since usually you keep making another reply to which at least a brief response seems needed. No, I've not personally attacked you. All of these point made there pertain to the subject and elaborate specific ways specific images can be useful see COM:EDUSE. You nominate a very large number of images at once so I made a brief text for each. I also asked for why a user who voted delete considers the file "OOS" (out of scope) which I thought was due if more than headcounts matter in DRs. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be relevant to the DR if I had a history of spurious, bias DRs related to AI artwork. I don't though and I've told you multiple times I'm not bias towards AI artwork. So your claims about my position in regards to it is patently false and intentionally so. It's not "providing context" or relevant to a DR to go off about how the nominator has a position that they've told you multiple times they don't have. All your doing is poisoning the well for other voters by mischaracterizing my position when you know I'm not bias towards AI or AI generated images. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Telling is different than actively demonstrating; your indiscriminate mass-nominations appear to show a strong bias in how you treat AI works even if you deny you have one or even think you don’t have one. You also have a tendency to make condescending remarks towards people you disagree with and bludgeon discussions at least as much as Prototyperspective, as seen in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated cyberpunk. Personally I think you both need to dial back here and stop using deletion as a sparring ground on this obviously controversial topic. Dronebogus (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's plenty of other DRs besides the one you linked to where people vote delete or say something I disagree with and I don't respond to them. So your claim that I have a tendency to make condescending remarks towards people I disagree with or bludgeon discussions at least as much as Prototyperspective is patently false. I have zero problem responding to people in a DR if they are just going to attack me or otherwise make false comments about the deletion request though. And that's all I was doing. Whereas both you and have made plenty of condescending remarks and bludgeoned discussions when no one even said anything about or to either one of you. At least when I respond it's to address something the person said about me and I'm asking for them to clarify things. Whereas your just whining about how everyone is out to get AI or some dumb nonsense like that. Regardless, if you don't want me to respond so much, cool. Stop attacking me by lying about how I'm bias towards AI artwork when I've told both of you multiple times now that's not my position and I wouldn't need to. Otherwise, I'm going to correct you. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Prototyperspective seems a great fan of AI images and thinks many of them are within project scope when many other users think they are not. That much is no problem; different perspective and opinions are why we have discussions. However on deletion requests Prototyperspective sometimes seems to have trouble assuming good faith from others who disagree with them, accusing them of being "obsessed" or "biased". Repeatedly on DR when I have voted that something is Out Of Scope, they challenge me to explain what I mean by that (the first time I did so) and argue that my stating something is OOS does not make it so (technically correct, but that's why we have more than one person looking at things to make determinations). I think I should note that Prototyperspective *does* sometimes vote for deletion of AI images, especially when they are bad quality. Now to the initial topic: Yes, adding images listed for deletion to somewhere on Wikimedia so they would be "in use" and thus thwarting the deletion request does seem to me to very much fit the definition of Gaming the system. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I get constant bad faith allegations and even ad hominems against me of which I quote d an example above, yet I'm being accused of mentioning in a brief way that people who call for deletion of AI images a) only ever voted delete in AI-related DRs b) quite explicitly back calls to have all AI images not be allowed into WMC regardless whether or not they would be in scope otherwise c) quite explicitly admit this in these discussions and with quotes like Due to both the copyright and ethical concerns, I am always in favor of deleting AI art, especially when we have any non-AI generated images that don't have those concerns. How would this not be a bias in regards to whether an AI image is within scope or not? It doesn't mean your vote isn't relevant, just that you seem to be against all current AI images to begin with. At the same time there are attempts to silence me. I always ever made points that are arguments that pertain to the subject manner and are clear relevant specific arguments; for example I don't write OOS fantasy illustration as a full explanation for why something is outside scope since that is not an explanation. If you still think I was making a comment there that was not in good faith please also link to it so the context and full text can be read. I noticed how people nominated like 100 AI images at once and have done so for a while now, "obsessed" may not be the right word and I apologize if I had chosen wrong wording of what I meant to briefly communicate. In contrast to the people complaining about me here – I very often vote, always with explantory rationales – for the deletion for AI images. Again, I can use images that are in DRs elsewhere and that is not gaming the system and there is no policy whatsoever that would restrict my freedom to use them elsewhere; as said you can just ignore these uses since you don't find them legitimate; people have already said that ignoring these uses would be fine since these uses are not legitimate. It's quite astonishing how much people complain about when they're doing arguably worse things like just calling things fan art when they clearly aren't or starting mass nominations of 50 or so images at once dismissing arguments in advance right from the start as handwaving or accusing me of various ad hominem things. I do see how I should change for example my volume while nothing of that sort has ever come from Infrogmation or Squirrel who wrote the above quote. Basically every AI-related DR has at least to gather at least 3 keep votes since that is roughly the number of delete votes they always, no matter how educationally valuable and high-quality, they seem to get, often without any discernible explanation. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Would it be correct to say that you consider putting AI images up for deletion into use as an appropriate tactic to counter what you consider a bias against AI images on Commons? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, and I never said that. Also I just removed a further image from the Wikibook.
    Relevant concerning the word bias that I used: Bias against AI art can enhance perceptions of human creativity […] We find that people devalue art labeled as AI-made across a variety of dimensions, even when they report it is indistinguishable from human-made art, and even when they believe it was produced collaboratively with a human. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Certainly there's findings from research papers that people in general devalue artwork if it's labeled as made by AI. But you weren't citing those papers in deletion requests when you brought up bias and the comments where you said it were aimed at specific users. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (Just an FYI to the last comment I left, which I reverted. Apparently I misread the conversation between Prototyperspective and the user who removed the image. My apologies to @Prototyperspective: ). --Adamant1 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Sintela[edit]

Sintela (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) has uploaded multiple files without permission; a couple I've nominated for speedy deletion as copyright violation, and the rest I've nominated for semi-speedy deletion as "no permission." I dream of horses (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Last warning sent, obvious copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Suyash Kumar Singh[edit]

User:Suyash Kumar Singh (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) is a single purpose account on Commons and enwiki whose only edits have been promoting themselves on their user page and uploading personal images. Despite their user pages being speedy deleted several times, they continue to recreate it. I've now blocked them on enwiki as NOTHERE. Could a Commons admin take appropriate action here please? Voice of Clam 07:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Indeed, indef. Yann (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DarkWorld305[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flower1004[edit]

Flower1004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Persistently uploading copyrighted image and falsely claiming at "own work" and also falsely licensing as under CC. Also re-uploading same image that was flagged for CSD to circumvent. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done All their uploads were done at the same time. Gave them a final warning. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IlMarcheseDelGrillo[edit]

IlMarcheseDelGrillo (talk · contributions · Statistics) is, per metadata of uploaded pictures and their crosswiki activity, a sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. Not it was created a day after Pamphili (talk · contributions · Statistics) was created. Block and tag advised. A09 (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

神手阿丁[edit]

神手阿丁 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  sockpuppet of Nipponese Dog Calvero, blocked on enwiki. DefenderTienMinh07 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:BHO8964[edit]

For some reason they insists on requesting the renaming of this file, despite having been denied three times and reverted one. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked the user indefinitely and deleted multiple empty categories. Taivo (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DiGeozalyan[edit]

DiGeozalyan (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continues uploading clear copyvios after the last warning from Marcus Cyron last December. Günther Frager (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. One week block. Copyvio is deleted. Taivo (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LDH8964[edit]

LDH8964 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

See § User:BHO8964 above and [1], clear sockpuppetry going on here. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - useless contributions} 12:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Who is the master account? Yann (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: I'd assume it's User:BHO8964. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually it is from Category:Sockpuppets of Nipponese Dog Calvero. Yann (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Gasforth-2021[edit]

Gasforth-2021 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Upload copyvio multiple image. メイド理世 (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@メイド理世: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above. I also gave them a final warning.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok メイド理世 (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done. One week block. I deleted speedily one file and nominated one for regular deletion as likely copyvio. Taivo (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Taivo: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

7-cm Mr Chung from Hong Kong[edit]

7-cm Mr Chung from Hong Kong (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Highly disruptive en:WP:SPA created only to vandalize. Nominated several featured picture to deletion with only to disrupt Commons. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 04:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user should be indef. blocked and all their edits should be reverted. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 04:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Due to its nature, the DR should also be deleted. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 04:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is also clearly a sock and an attack account. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 04:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Utkarsh555[edit]

Utkarsh555 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Uploads non-free files Kelly The Angel (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kelly The Angel: hasn't yet been given a proper warning, and you didn't notify them you were posting about them on this noticeboard. You might start there, which does not require action by an admin. - Jmabel ! talk 20:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The phrase "Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing" (bold in original) appeared thirteen times (!!!) on Utkarsh555's talk page before they blanked it and has subsequently been added three additional times. How is that improper ("hasn't yet been given a proper warning") warning? Эlcobbola talk 20:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is also a sock of Utkarsh Pandey (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Yann (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ahh, they are apparently great at blanking. ─ The Aafī (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+ and en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Utkarsh Pandey/Archive. ─ The Aafī (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reblocked this account indef. for socking. They already have a collection on Commons. Yann (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Raid5[edit]

Raid5 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

The user “Raid5” is constantly “pinging” (spamming) my account with alerts. (See a screenshot.)

Of the 25 (twenty-five) last alerts, 25 are caused by “Raid5”. This kind of attention seeking is unpleasant and compulsive, and most of those are merely repetitive nitpicking. The user seems to me to think this as a game or as a social media, like Instagram, where you “follow” certain users and comment on everything they do. Unfortunartely that feels like persecution or cyberbullying (cf. Griefing).

If I am indeed thoroughly so evil and wretch’d, why is it up to this one user, Raid5, to keep calling it?

This user is very quick to comment and modify anything I do here. For instance, when I uploaded the screenshot, it took less than 2 hours for the user to comment it on my talk page in a foreign language (in a condescending tone) and to make a pointless revision, merely in order to seek attention.

I would guess the quality of my contributions here is neither better nor worse than that of most other users in the community. However, that user has been targeting me for a long period of time, as it feels to me, with the intention to drive away an experienced user.

Another problem have been vexatious complaints about missing “essential information” (one example) and unfounded deletion requests (one example).

There are other uploaders who care less about templates and typography and source information than I do, but I seem to be the only one who is constantly scolded and alerted by “Raid5.”

Yet another issue are removals of relevant categories, like this one and this one, which I do not understand.

Please prevent this user from alerting me constantly (especially in edit summaries — it’s rather pointless). Most of those demands are irrelevant or matters of taste, or more general issues which many contributors could equally be blamed for, and which could well be attended to tacitly. I have noted the user’s demands, but constant harrassment does not recommend them. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mlang.Finn: Hi, and welcome. In Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo, I see a "Muted users" section. You might want to use that. Help is at mw:Help:Notifications#mute.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: I doubt muting would meet the need here. I don't think Mlang.Finn would be happier to simply go without hearing about it as someone removed categories from their uploads that they considered correct, and nominated their uploads for deletion on arguable grounds. - Jmabel ! talk 02:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mlang.Finn: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=840025890&oldid=839970674&title=File%3ADelegation-for-Kekkonen-1973.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AETYK-Finland-delegation-1975.jpg&diff=840026320&oldid=839966990 (the examples of removal of categories) are arguably correct, unless you are saying that Urho Kekkonen is not a Finnish politician. I take it you wanted the category there because of other politicians in the photo. This particular issue of COM:OVERCAT is controversial. I'd probably have (in Raid5's place) left the category there or (in yours) restored it, and in either case would have added a comment that it refers to other politicians in the photo.
I've looked a bit at the other diffs and images here; I can't imagine a major sanction here. To be honest, the single most egregious thing I see here is one of your edit summaries ([2] beginning "CAN YOU READ?" (caps in original). I can understand why you may have been frustrated, but this doesn't look like a one-sided issue to me.
I'm aware I could give this more study, but I'm hoping to hear from an admin who has been more involved over time.
If you'd both agree to an interaction ban (stay away from each other's uploads) I'd be fine with that. - Jmabel ! talk 02:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: Poistin kategorian, ettei Urho Kekkonen olisi ollut yhtä aikaa pää- ja alaluokassa. Kumosin muokkaukseni, koska kuvassa oli myös muita poliitikkoja.
Mlang.Finniltä on usein poistettu muokkausoikeus suomenkielisessä Wikipediassa häiriköivän muokkaustyylin, muokkaussotimisen, henkilökohtaisten hyökkäysten ja eston kiertämisen takia (Mlang.Finnin estoloki). Hän puolustelee sivistymätöntä käytöstään pitkällä kokemuksellaan Wikipediassa (Pohdintaa, Unblockables: ”How long they have been on Wikipedia, often stated more nobly as "length of service," will usually be in the mix. This may seem odd as we expect our long-term users to understand policy better than the newbies who would have been blocked for the same offense, but somehow this makes sense to some users.”). ”Muokkaajat, joilla ei ole riittäviä sosiaalisia taitoja saattavat aiheuttaa häiriötä. Vaikka häiriköinti ei olisikaan tahallista, se on silti haitallista Wikipedialle.” Suomenkielisessä Wikipediassa usea muokkaaja on puuttunut hänen huonoon toimintaansa.
Muiden käyttäjien neuvonnasta huolimatta Commonsissa ei ole kiinnitetty tarpeeksi huomiota hänen edelleen jatkuvaan vaivihkaiseen muokkaamiseen: hän muuttaa https-osoitteita http-muotoon ilman perustelua, poistelee pakonomaisesti otsikoita (Lähteen ilmoittaminen). Hänelle on vaikeata keskustella ja toimia yhteistyössä muiden kanssa. Commonsissa Mlang.Finn on syyllistynyt henkilökohtaisiin hyökkäyksiin esittämällä vakavia syytöksiä ilman todisteita, nimittelemällä minua toistuvasti naiseksi, pilkkaamalla käyttäjätunnukseni merkitystä, syyttämällä sukkanukkeilusta, vaikka häntä huomautettiin lukuisia kertoja. (Toisten käyttäjien syyttely, Deletion requests/File:Lilla-Teatern-1959.jpg, Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lilla-Teatern-1959.jpg).
”Another problem have been --- and unfounded deletion requests (one example).” – Category:Undelete in 2083, Tallentamasi kuvien linkit luokassa Undelete in 2083.
”comment it on my talk page in a foreign language” – User:Mlang.Finn ”I’m a scholar from Finland.” • Käyttäjä:Mlang.Finn ”Tämän käyttäjän äidinkieli on suomi.”
Pyydän, että ylläpito puuttuisi hänen projektille vahingolliseen toimintaansa ja huonoon käytökseensä. raid5 23:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't read Finnish at all; the following is via Google Translate. - Jmabel ! talk 00:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)I removed the category, so that Urho Kekkonen would not have been in the main and lower category at the same time. I reversed my edit because there were also other politicians in the picture.Reply[reply]
Mlang.Finn's editing rights have often been removed on the Finnish Wikipedia due to disruptive editing style, editing wars, personal attacks and evading the block (Mlang.Finn's block log). He defends his uncivilized behavior with his long experience on Wikipedia (Reflection, Unblockables: "How long they have been on Wikipedia, often stated more nobly as "length of service," will usually be in the mix. This may seem Odd as we expect our long-term users to understand policy better than the newbies who would have been blocked for the same offense, but Somehow this makes sense to some users."). "Editors who don't have enough social skills can cause a disturbance. Even if the interference is not intentional, it is still harmful to Wikipedia.” In the Finnish Wikipedia, several editors have intervened in his bad actions.
Despite the advice of other users, not enough attention has been paid in Commons to his still continuous stealthy editing: he changes https addresses to http format without justification, compulsively deletes headers (Attribution). It is difficult for him to discuss and cooperate with others. In Commons, Mlang.Finn has committed personal attacks by making serious accusations without evidence, repeatedly calling me a woman, mocking the meaning of my username, accusing me of sock puppetry despite being pointed out numerous times. (Blaming other users, Deletion requests/File:Lilla-Teatern-1959.jpg, Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lilla-Teatern-1959.jpg).
"Another problem have been --- and unfounded deletion requests (one example)." – Category:Undelete in 2083, Links to your saved images in the category Undelete in 2083.
"comment it on my talk page in a foreign language" - User:Mlang.Finn "I'm a Scholar from Finland." • User:Mlang.Finn "This user's native language is Finnish."
I ask that maintenance intervene in his project-damaging activities and bad behavior. raid5 23:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
END TRANSLATION - Jmabel ! talk 00:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kallerna: as the only Finnish-speaking Commons admin, perhaps you can do better here than anyone else. - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To me it seems quite obvious that user raid5 is not the problem, it is the other way. If bad behavior continues, Mlang.Finn should be blocked for a short period of time. —kallerna (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David S. Soriano[edit]

User was blocked twice last year for uploading out of scope personal artwork (initially hundreds which were deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI images created by David S. Soriano).

They have uploaded more out of scope personal artwork since that second block expired in August. Belbury (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: Can previous verdicts on their digital/AI work being out of scope be applied to delete their uploads here, or should I raise another DR to discuss them? None of the images are in use. Belbury (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They should be deleted, but a regular DR may be best anyway. Yann (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jesse Daniel Brown[edit]

Jesse Daniel Brown (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has a long history of self-promotion and uploading of personal pictures. They were indef. blocked in the en.WP for self-promotion. Here, they uploaded several personal out of scope pictures that were deleted. That didn't stop them, and they uploaded several others. They were warned twice. Today, they used their user page and their talk page for self-promotion. This is a typical case of en:WP:NOTTHERE. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 16:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kacamata: I have deleted their userpage and indeffed them. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd have not issued an indef block if they were not previously blocked on en-wiki. This is reasonable. Causing disruptions despite being warned and blocked elsewhere, of course, an indef-block is warranted. Thanks for the report. I'd let the images run procedurally. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi Thanks. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 18:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

177.76.209.102[edit]

Hi, This IP made many edits today, and the days before. Among the few edits I checked, I reverted 3 as inadequate. So I blocked the IP for 3 days. I don't have the time to review more edits now. Help needed. Yann (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Putting Special:Contributions/177.76.209.102 here for convenience. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sock user[edit]

டாக்டர் வா.செ.செல்வம் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has a sock தென்னை மருத்துவர் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and good to delete both users' uploads. Both are blocked in ta.wiki. I report for admin intervention. AntanO 14:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Master account warned, both files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Nordin Aghzenay Bakouh[edit]

Nordin Aghzenay Bakouh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  All photos uploaded by this user in the Category:Larbi Messari comes from Youtube but I am not sure they are copyright free. Could an Administrator verify them, especially because numerous uploads from this user have been deleted for the same reason according to his talk page and he seems to have reloaded some under different names such as "CONDOLENCIAS MUHAMMAD VI.png" which was deleted under « File:CARTA MONARCA MUHAMMAD VI DANDO LAS CONDOLENCIAS POR LA MUETRE DE MLM.png ». Pierre cb (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment Last warning sent, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nordin Aghzenay Bakouh‎. Yann (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Os1040[edit]

Os1040 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is another sock of Oscareduardo10 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . They uploaded File:Oscareduardo10 Logo.png. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_109#Socks_of_IvanRamonTrillos for more context. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 22:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. File deleted, and protected against recreation. Yann (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I'd been leaving it unprotected so I can spot the new socks, lol. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RZuo[edit]

User RZuo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has appeared to have continually used their rollback rights on reverting edits that are not vandalism or clear mistakes by other users recently [3], violating the COM:RBK policy limiting the use of rollback to combating vandalism [...] own mistaken edits or the clearly mistaken edits of another user. It should only be used for clear-cut cases, and without any explanation or edit summary. Since the user has been repeatedly blocked for incivil behaviour across multiple sites, I am unwilling to engage in further arguments with the user, and thus directly reporting this case to ANU for third-party review. LuciferianThomas 02:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LuciferianThomas: "repeatedly" and a link to all of their contributions is basically saying "go work it out for yourself". Please link at least three examples of what you consider to be inappropriate rollbacks by RZuo. - Jmabel ! talk 04:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All reverts since mid January. None of those are reverting vandalism or clear mistakes. LuciferianThomas 05:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=845573306"