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.

Continued copyright violations / advertising by User:Mipagolf[edit]

I noticed User:Yann's previous notice on their talk page, and it seems like they are continuing to upload the same copyrighted images seemingly for advertisement purposes, see Special:Contributions/Mipagolf. Palemeditation (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week. All files were already deleted by Jonatan Svensson Glad. Yann (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry - forgot to block. Thanks Yann! --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:PoundinMyCock4U[edit]

Inappropriate username. Dronebogus (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Blocked per Commons:Username policy. --Túrelio (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now globally locked + hidden. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alice0815[edit]

Alice0815 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Indiscriminately mass-nominated a bunch of files with the same rambling, incomprehensible rationale; mostly posting this here so someone with more patience than will see this and speedy close all these frivolous, invalid nominations. Dronebogus (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first problem from this account. - Jmabel ! talk 14:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, seems to be a rambling form of en:WP:IDONTLIKEIT. See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive_22#Alice0815.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: same link I posted.
However, it looks like these are all pictures of one person, a cross-dressed man or MTF transsexual (can't guess from images how someone identifies), many with potentially disparaging file names, and this person seems to be saying it is them, that these were accidentally given free licenses on Flickr, that they are scrubbing them from Flickr and would like them scrubbed here. If I understand correctly, that would be a reasonable courtesy deletion request.
@Alice0815: if I have understood that correctly, please say so here and I would support a courtesy deletion request. Since these are all the same issue, this really should have been done as a Mass deletion request and you certainly should have written the rationale more coherently, but those aren't enormous issues.
I will ask Alice0815 not to make any further edits before replying here. If they abide by that, no need for a block. - Jmabel ! talk 14:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether this user is the person appearing in those photos, some of these files need to be renamed. Regardless of how the Flickr uploader originally titled the image, a filename describing the subject of a photo as a "sissy prostitute" (for example) seems inappropriate. Omphalographer (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hatomizinko3 Hatomizinko3 insults using photo description ＋ Multiple account operation[edit]

This is a story in the Japanese version, but I wasn't sure where to report it, so I decided to report it here.Hatomizinko3 used the photo description to insult me ​​for posting a photo taken with an old camera. I warned him in a user note on the Japanese version of Wikipedia, but he not only recruited me, but also insulted me by saying that the quality of the photos was poor. While we were discussing how to respond, he threatened to find me and told me he didn't care if I was blocked because he would keep posting pictures on the commons. He runs another account on Commons called Hatomizinko. ジョンドウ (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ジョンドウ: when you posted here, you should have put a notice at User talk:Hatomizinko3. I have now done that for you. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At File:ジャスティンミラノ 皐月賞 優勝時.jpg, according to Google translate, the original caption "EOSKissX4ごときでとられた写真を貼るんじゃねーよ" means "Don't post photos taken with something like EOSKissX4." @ジョンドウ: I'm not immediately sure why that is supposed to be an insult to you in particular. - Jmabel ! talk 18:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "recruited," that word makes no sense here.
The remark here seems a bit out of line, especially the apparent obscenity of "クソ面白いです, " which I suspect is more extreme in Japanese than its English equivalent. But that is on ja-wiki, not Commons. Similarly for the last link: again, a bit rude, probably particularly unacceptable in Japanese, but I don't see anything that amounts to a threat to "find you." - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "ごとき" is a word that looks down on the subject and has the meaning of discriminating against old cameras.I don't think it's acceptable to make comments that discriminate in editorial policy because the camera is old. Intimidation refers to the part where both parties "meet and talk" knowing that each other will be at the racetrack. He feels that a person can be identified by the camera model. ジョンドウ (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amaterasu_1-1[edit]

After releasing from block, this user restarted uploading copyvio or unfree logos and these files were removed; File:Logo workman.svg, File:Logo Far Eastern Federal University.svg and File:ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs Emblem.svg. Netora (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. 3 months block (third block). Taivo (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malttew9983 and socks[edit]

The three accounts are the same user, focused with uploading the same political flags, there are requests and speedy deletions but the user creates new accounts with the same objective (changing slightly the name of file). Taichi (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked them all. Taivo (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malversation[edit]

Bonjour, Un contributeur juge une personne d'extrême-droite alors que c'est une liste citoyenne composée de 81 personnes. Sachant qu'il y a des personnes de tout bord politique à l'intérieur. Gauche radicale, gauche, communiste, droite, centre, etc...

Il ne s'est même pas renseigné sur toutes les personnes présentent mais affiche que tout le monde est d'extrême-droite. Pourriez-vous y remédier ? Car c'est de la discrimination pour les 80 autres personnes.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_listes_aux_%C3%A9lections_europ%C3%A9ennes_de_2024_en_France

Je vous remercie Archess Ney (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Archess Ney: Bonjour, Cela ne semble pas avoir de rapport avec Commons (ce site-ci). S'il y a un problème sur fr.Wikipédia, il faut vous adresser à fr.Wikipédia. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Affandy Abdul Rahman Saleh Lee Ully[edit]

Affandy Abdul Rahman Saleh Lee Ully (talk · contribs) contributions appear to be all spam. - Jmabel ! talk 15:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked him indefinitely as spam-only user. Taivo (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A.I. generated "enhancements" by Riad Salih[edit]

I have noticed and encountered a number of files related to Algeria were overwritten with watermarked "enhancements" (colorization, upscales) showing clear A.I. artifacting from User:Riad Salih in the past few years, some of these also have doutable sourcing information (they seem like Flickr washing, but they are all PD from what I know). This raises obvious concerns per COM:OVERWRITE, COM:AI, and COM:WATERMARK. I am unaware of the full extent of these "enhancements" and I can't revert this myself (I am not autopatrolled) so I deemed this worth raising to the noticeboard, here are some instances:

File:Colonel Amirouche.jpg - overwritten with upscaled, watermarked, and colored, used as infobox photo

File:Mustapha Ben boulaid.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked, used as infobox photo

File:Arrestation de Larbi Ben M'Hidi.jpg - colored, upscaled and watermarked, used in Wikipedia

File:Ali la Pointe-bennacer.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked

File:Une délégation du FLN au Caire.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked

File:1975 Algiers Agreement.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked

File:Amar Ouamrane.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked, infobox

File:Taleb Abderrahmane.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked, infobox

File:Krim belkacem.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked, infobox

File:L'arrestation de Zohra Drif en 1957.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked, infobox

File:Fatiha Bouhired.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked, infobox

File:Mohamed Lamouri & Amirouche Ait Hamouda & Ali N'mer.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked, wikipedia

File:Mohamed-Larbi-Ben-M'hidi-avant-l'exécution.jpg - upscaled and watermarked

File:Danielle Michel-Chich (guerre d'Algérie).jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked, wikipedia

File:Benkhedda 19march62.jpg - overwritten with upscaled and watermarked

Thank you very much. NAADAAN (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While probably any of these would be acceptable as derivative works, absolutely none of them should overwrite the originals. I'll revert them all; someone else can address User:Riad Salih about this. @NAADAAN, I don't see anywhere on his user talk page where you notified him of this discussion. Am I missing something, or did you skip a required step? - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification got reverted. NAADAAN (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel No rush, I will provide an answer. Thank you. Riad Salih (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted all except File:Mohamed-Larbi-Ben-M'hidi-avant-l'exécution.jpg, which is Riad Salih's own upload (for which he appears, unfortunately, not to have provided the original documentary photo). - Jmabel ! talk 16:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think this is settled now unless I find more instances of overwritten "enhancements". NAADAAN (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or, no need for a full explanation; it's just a waste of time. Thanks, Jmabel, for the revert, even though it happened a year ago. I have already reverted most of the pictures, except for the ones I overlooked.
I restored over 100 pictures without using AI, (01, 02, 03) as it requires significant effort to restore them. Most of the pictures were not processed by AI, with only a few exceptions. I don't want to receive any more notifications; one notification is sufficient. The background of this nomination revolves around the Algeria/Morocco war.
If the person who initiated the nomination genuinely cared about authenticity, they could have kindly asked me to restore the pictures. It seems they are more interested in scrutinizing my account for potential issues, as we regularly engage in editing on the English Wikipedia.
Wishing everyone a pleasant day Riad Salih (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notified you because it was a requirement for this message board. I am not aware of any "Moroccan-Algerian war" happening since 1963 so I have no clue what this is about, this has nothing to do with English Wikipedia. Please COM:AGF rather than portraying me as someone who "[does not] care about authenticity", neither of us are autopatrolled, so I did not think it would be possible to revert them without any intervention -- I commend you for having reverted some photographs before. Hope this clears up some things NAADAAN (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:BMarGlines[edit]

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]

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]
  • 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]
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]
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]

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]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=878371569"