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
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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 fou tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
  • It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

User:NoonIcarus and User:WMrapids interaction ban

[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
After reviewing the situation, I have decided to indefinitely block NoonIcarus and impose a two-way interaction ban between WMrapids and NoonIcarus. Despite prior sanctions (blocks, bans) on other projects, NoonIcarus has continued to engage in disruptive behavior, including targeting WMrapids in ways that could reasonably be interpreted as cross-wiki hounding. This aligns with concerns raised during the ArbCom case and subsequent sanctions on other projects. Similar patterns of antagonistic behavior from NoonIcarus across Wikimedia projects have been pointed out, too. Their interactions here suggest an inability or unwillingness to adapt to collaborative norms. The history between the two users, including ArbCom cases and cross-wiki disputes, demonstrates that their interactions are rarely productive and frequently disruptive. The interaction ban will prevent further conflicts here on Commons between both users, in the event that NoonIcarus is unblocked. In that event, there is ample opportunity for both users to work constructively in separate areas here on Commons. The most important reason that motivated me to take action without further discussion is that this behavior has been repeated in other wikis resulting in similar sanctions. --Bedivere (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! To avoid further conflict and disruption with users on the project, I would like to propose an interaction ban for NoonIcarus and I. This has already been successfully instituted on English and Spanish Wikipedia following lengthy disputes. Thank you! WMrapids (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment WMrapids is making this request after I tagged two of their copyvios: File:Tren de Aragua in Aurora, Colorado.png and File:Tren de Aragua jewelry store.png, not to mention several other issues. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As NoonIcarus has said themselves, the copyright issue is unclear (for example: File:Shooting of Brian Thompson CCTV frame 01.png) and the images were uploaded in good faith. I do not come to Commons to perform copyright violations or participate in drama, I come to contribute. NoonIcarus has made this difficult due to their consistent crosswiki hounding. It would be best for everyone if we can end this with an interaction ban for us both so that we may get on with our contributions.--WMrapids (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus: certainly not a clearcut case, and if you are under an interaction ban with this user on other wikis, you probably should have stayed out of this. It is certainly not the sort of speedy deletion you tagged it as being.
Given that, and that WMrapids has requested that the interaction ban be extended to Commons, I support an interaction ban. Is there any admin who disagrees? - Jmabel ! talk 22:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment For what it's worth, I apologize if the speedy deletion tag was not the best alternative. I did look into Threshold of originality#Pre-positioned recording devices and Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States#Colorado before tagging, and did look like copyvios based on reverse search, as Túrelio mentioned [1] --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If more context is needed, WMrapids is currently indefinitely banned in the English Wikipedia for sockpuppettering, and is currently banned from creating pages in the Spanish Wikipedia (CentralAuth). The first interaction restriction was enacted before this was discovered, and this should be a clue of the cross-wiki disruptive editing I'm referring to.
Besides all of that, these were not the first copyvios uploaded by WMrapids. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As what Jmabel said above, nothing is ever clearcut with NoonIcarus. The sockpuppet issue was a misunderstanding as I created a second account was created for privacy. Though I appealed, I still was accepting of the ban because I was wrong. As for the page creation sanction on Spanish Wikipedia, it occurred because my Spanish writing is admittedly not as good as I thought it was. This was amicably cleared up with the administrator who created the sanction, so no real harm there.
The reason I am on Spanish Wikipedia anyway is mainly so I can continue my contributions in some way while focusing on local topics. I have been doing this mainly with Commons (see articles: Fennville, Manlius, New Richmond Bridge, Lansing, Corewell Health, etc.) However, I also have an interest in Latin America and if I make edits that NoonIcarus doesn't agree with, they will hound me. Due to NoonIcarus' heavy bias and dishonest edit summaries regarding Latin American political topics on English Wikipedia, they were indefinitely banned from editing the topic by the Wikipedia Community.
All I was asking for is a simple interaction ban since I didn't want to go out into the weeds with this (my discussions can be quite lengthy), but I have to respond to accusations about my character. While I am certainly not perfect (especially not with my Spanish...), I have always edited with good faith and will continue to do so. The same cannot be said about NoonIcarus. Since I no longer can assume good faith with them, I am sincerely asking for a simple interaction ban between us and nothing more. Thank you. WMrapids (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make some clarifications left out again: WMrapids used more than two accounts and the topic restriction against me precisely was requested by them and before this was uncovered, not because of the reasons they allege.
They have repeatedly uploaded unreferenced and often controversial content, something that has continued in Commons. The most recent example is this map: File:Map of Tren de Aragua in the United States.svg, based on this map made by the Heritage Foundation: TDA Activity Monitor. They cite sources for 10 states, but the rest are unreferenced, more than half of them.
An interaction restriction would certainly prevent mudslinging from them, but the request is a way to seek these changes to remain unchecked. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with Jmabel on that issue. These are not cut-and-dried cases as some CCTV footage is PD in the US as some cases the camera is not operated by a human, and there was no specific intent to video an image. But if there is someone controlling the camera, it would be copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jmabel and Abzeronow: I'm not opposed to an interaction ban, but I'm leaning towards a long block - maybe an indefinite block - for NoonIcarus being a better option. WMrapids and NoonIcarus have such an ugly history that they were the subject of an ArbCom case that resulted in an interaction ban between the two (among other sanctions), and then they come here to another project and target WMrapids's uploads? Excuse me? Yes, Commons is not Wikipedia, and Commons has a reputation as being a place that users banned from other projects go to show that they can be constructive editors, but this is quite the opposite of that. I have no patience for what NoonIcarus looks to be doing. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what @The Squirrel Conspiracy is concerned about, but I'm leaning towards trying a 2 way iban, that will be enforced with indefinite blocks if need be. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 03:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, although I'm not opposed to blocking NoonIcarus. Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     NOTE: ARBCOM case about these two
    TLDR:
    • 2-way IBAN
    • WMrapids was CU-blocked during the case,
    • WMrapids then got their block upgraded to arbcom block.
    • NoonIcarus got topic banned by the community from Latin American politics before the case.
    I honestly wouldn't mind if we started inforcing EN-wiki Ibans. Commons is big enough for everyone to get along and stay away from ANI ANU
    All the Best -- Chuck Talk 05:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note that WMrapids was also topic banned in the ArbCom decision, on top of the indefinite block.
I have yet to appeal my topic restriction based on the ArbCom findings, but I'm too burnt out of the discussions. I would only ask to take into account my contributions in Commons when considering a decision. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support iban and  Support block for NoonIcarus. I am not an admin. on any project. I have long complained of NoonICarusus's (fka Jamez42's) behavior on en.Wikipedia (including mentioning edits on es.Wikipedia) up until the ArbCom proceeding mentioned, which I participated in. I had hoped the resolution of the ArbCom would have been enough for NoonIcarus to get the message to cool such behavior. But instead, he repeats the same behavior with WMRapids on es.Wikipedia--gets an interaction ban there--and now again on WikiCommons. A stronger message is necessary that he be respectful of Wikipedia/Wikimedia norms.-David Tornheim (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Question @David Tornheim: I see that you didn't edit in Commons for over four years until now. Could you kindly mention how did you learn about this thread? Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes look at your contributions to see if you are repeating your old behaviors. Months ago, I considered reporting you on en.Wiki for skirting your topic ban by welcoming new users who made an edit supporting a specific political view in Latin American politics, but decided against it. After I uploaded an image to WikiCommons, I looked at your contribs here and was shocked to see you are doing the same thing against WMRapids as before and had just gotten in trouble for it on es.Wiki too. Quite troubling.David Tornheim (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you're repeating the same behavior you're criticizing about me, while being lenient on WMrapids' abuse of multiple accounts, blocks and cross-wiki behavior (including the publication of false information). I have to wonder what do you think a block would accomplish that an interaction restriction wouldn't, and have to say that I'm worried about possible canvassing since said upload took place less than an hour before your comment here. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NoonIcarus, all I asked for and still only ask for is an interaction ban. Making accusations of canvassing is serious and not helpful. I’m doing my best to start fresh and move on with my contributions. Please do the same with me. WMrapids (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus: forgive me if I missed something above, but are you willing to agree to a mutual interaction ban or not? - Jmabel ! talk 23:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question should be whether to consider the circumstances in other projects or the ones here in Commons, and in the case of the latter what would the restriction seek to address that other venues haven't.
My main concerns with WMrapids have been the upload of poorly referenced information and edit warring. The issues about sourcing in two files (File:Map of Tren de Aragua in the United States.svg and File:Tren de Aragua presence in the Americas.svg) are already reflected with {{factual accuracy}} tags, and the copyright status of the two others is being handled in this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tren de Aragua in Aurora, Colorado.png.
WMrapids and I have had few interactions in Commons, dating back already to at least a year ago, and despite our editorial differences they have been addressed in the appropriate venues, namely the file talk pages.
Whatever the case is, I want to stress my support towards constructive dialogue. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NoonIcarus, I'm not trying to be rude at all, but your answer to Jmabel's question still seems to be unclear. We have had many attempts at "constructive dialogue" for almost two years now and in two different projects, third parties have determined that it is best that we don't interact.
On Commons specifically:
  • We edit warred about the Guarimba category while we simultaneously had a third party resolve a debate we had.
  • I have seen you follow and edit files I have created on Commons before we have had this most recent dispute.
  • You have continuously moved the goalposts regarding your rationale to delete and tag my work in maps I uploaded:
    • In this process, you may have violated COM:OVERWRITE when you significantly modified my work multiple times in an upload war [2][3] to support your opinion of what my work should look like.
    • After this didn't stick, you demanded more sources, which I provided.
    • After I provided dozens of sources, you moved the goalposts again and inaccurately claimed that for my map, that there were "sources for 10 states, but the rest are unreferenced". I responded again with showing the already exisiting Newsweek and TDA Monitor sources and detailing which individual states are covered by their maps.
    • You move the posts again and inaccurately say "Newsweek cites The New York Post ... the TDA Activity Monitor, which was produced by the Heritage Foundation, an unreliable source". The Newsweek map does not cite any source and seems to be Newsweek's own creation while TDA Activity Monitor does not list the Heritage Foundation as a source anywhere. This is not the first time you provided inaccurate information regarding this dispute, which makes this look like intentional manipulation and not accidental, which is detrimental towards any good faith.
    • Finally, after I responded to the previous point and have been in the process of writing this, you responded minutes later randomly posting "en:WP:RS/P", showing just how close you are monitoring this situation and how you ignored my response (that the New York Post nor the Heritage Foundation are used as sources).
So while I have done my best to assume good faith through all of this and have provided more and more sources to appease your ever changing demands, "constructive dialogue" between us typically results in an IBAN. You have kept me on my toes any time I perform an edit and you seem to be on your own to monitor my edits, presenting yourself as being the only one to monitor my behavior. Given all of this, I sincerely believe that an IBAN is best for the both of us so we can perform calm, healthy edits without being a burden to others.
So, can you please agree to an interaction ban? WMrapids (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Usuarioeditor9

[edit]

The user Usuarioeditor9 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) received a final warning for repeatedly uploading files with copyvio on December 15, 2021. The user subsequently continued to upload files with copyvio, a few of which have since been deleted. (For example 1, 2, 3, 4, etc) On November 9, 2022, the user deleted messages from their talk page (including the warning). Much of the remaining files from this user (related to footballers) are small and low-resolution files, suggesting that they might be screenshots and clippings. (For example 1, 2, 3, 4 5, etc) --Ovruni (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There is no recent edits, so a block may not be useful, but many of their uploads are indeed suspicious, so Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Usuarioeditor9. There are probably more suspicious uploads, and many useless ones, which should also be deleted. Yann (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nelsito Maduro

[edit]

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

Can someone please tell Nelsito Maduro to behave properly? For merely nominating one of their articles for copyright, they have made several attacks against me, including accusing me of socking under two other user accounts [4] in the English Wiki, one being a veteran admin, who recently blocked them in the English Wiki for being disruptive [5]. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Indef and Revdel All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alachuckthebuck: Please don't use checkmarks in admin threads except to indicate something is done. Admins might see that and think that you blocked them and revdeled, and skip over this.  Support would be better. Thanks! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that! All the Best -- Chuck Talk 21:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I deleted 2 uploads by Nelsito Maduro and warned them. Yann (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yann! HistoryofIran (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sangeeth Manoj Kumar R

[edit]

User talk:Sangeeth Manoj Kumar R he is continueing copyvio. he before blocked couple of times. for now, we need 3 or 6 months. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 6 months, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Kamenysloup

[edit]

User talk:Kamenysloup multiple copyvio. need block. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 21:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Already warned, and no upload after that. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=File%3AAg+SWT.jpg&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist check this. he uploaded this copyvio after last warning. please block him. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Ah yes, right, blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cswolley327

[edit]

Uploading a series of bathroom nudes that look like "hidden camera" type images. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support delete as G3, and leaving a note on talk page. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done VOA, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MaydayXD14

[edit]

MaydayXD14 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

The user insists on uploading the same logos that were previously deleted and now uploads protected content from the Spanish newspaper El País under a false license. He was already blocked months ago. Taichi (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months, all files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BCNViki Copyvios

[edit]

I noticed that this image [6] had a creative commons licence, which I found hard to believe for a contemporary artwork. I check the link and there was no mention of a CC licence. I then checked BCNViki's talkpage and found it full of notices regarding Copyvios. This seems to be a pattern of behaviour going back some years. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Deleted. Taivo (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TVPSICH38

[edit]

TVPSICH38 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Uploading copyvios well-after "final" warning. – Pbrks (t • c) 13:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Account blocked indef., all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimaribarre

[edit]

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

I blocked this user from uploading files. They have a very long record of copyright violations, and still nearly 1000 files to check. Please help. Yann (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lidia Iscano

[edit]

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

This user was once blocked for adding out of scope content, and I am not sure uploads and edits after that are OK. Please check. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Blocked by The Squirrel Conspiracy exactly as I was posting here. Thanks to the Squirrel. Yann (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done @Yann: I saw them hiding that they reuploaded deleted files by editing a closed DR, investigated their other edits, and determined they were a VoA. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im Fokus

[edit]

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

There is an apparent and quite nasty personal attack penned by Im Fokus in a closed DR, diff. The report is about this quote: "Fazit: so wie die Revolutionsgarden die kleinste Haarsträhne ahnden, die unter einem Kopftuch hervorlugt, so ahnden die Bürokraten hier den kleinsten Zipfel Wahlplakat.", translating as "Résumé: as the Revolutionary Guards sanction the smallest strand of hair peeking out from below the hijab, as do the local bureaucrats sanction the smallest corner of election posters." The comparison with the human rights violating Iranian forces is totally out of place and IMHO attacking any volunteer active in German FOP related DR. I'd like to ask at least for the removal of this comment by an administrator. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Magnus Manske - Unauthorized bot

[edit]

This user probably makes automated edits with bot, even though he has a separate account User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske), uploading images, which some are in poor quality and when better quality is accessible from source page. Example: File:Friedrich_Niethammer_-_niethammer_ankernder.jpg, 200 × 147 (12 KB), but when I download this image from source web page (https://www.artnet.com/WebServices/images/ll00242lldbeYGFgpbo72CfDrCWvaHBOcpXYC/friedrich-niethammer-ankernder-kurenkahn.jpg) it is 637 x 470, 101 KB. Please check this. 87.205.173.49 21:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you discuss this with Magnus previously? Why not? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Magnus Manske was not notified, and this particular issue could have been solved by discussing this with him. Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royiswariii

[edit]

Royiswariii (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Uploading copyvios after final warning. – Pbrks (t • c) 03:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Bedivere (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to note that I've instated the block not because of the latest notification on possibly copyrighted files, but rather after thoughtful reflection on this thread on Yann's user talk page. "I want to consult if can upload a picture without a VRT", says Royiswariii, before including a DM from Bini's twitter saying explicitly they allow the use of their photographs but only for non-commercial uses. Very explicitly! "Just don't sell them". That makes them incompatible with Commons. Despite Yann's response that they should send a formal written permission, they did upload images based on such permission, which they apparently sent to VRT. These are obvious copyvios but I'll let them be for now because a ticket has been created. Bedivere (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore Yann gave them two final warnings [7] [8] which they removed. One month will suffice for now but next block will be longer. Bedivere (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CFA1877

[edit]

Category:Narrow gauge tracks in Catalonia CFA1877 This user is not complying with the criteria with speedy deletion. Keep deleting all the files second before to make the made-up case for the speedy deletion. Not to mention that the category Category:Narrow gauge tracks in Catalonia make all the sense to exist considering thah it give more especific information and follows the name criteria of the others categories on the same topic. After a warning in his talk page the user has no intention to change his procedure. It is not the first time that the user do not comply with the norms.

Crieria for speedy deletion: C2. Unuseful empty category If a category is empty and is obviously unusable, unlikely to be ever meaningfully used, it may be speedily deleted. Don't apply if the page is marked with an explanation of why it should be kept or if the deletion can be controversial, the category was recently unconsensually emptied, etc. Consider redirecting or renaming the category rather than deleting it.

9pm 00:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This user has a bad habit of fragmenting categories into new one subcategories just to accommodate a couple of images. It creates a category that does not exist at other levels and ends up being unnecessary. This causes unnecessary overcategorization, when there are already other categories that fulfill the functions. The user is perfectly aware of what he is doing, as he has already had clashes over the issue of categories and it is the second time in a few weeks that it has caused this problem again. CFA1877 (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every Category of Rail Tracks has his own of Narrow gauge tracks, so you would have to explain the reason to delete it. By now no convincing. This category has by now 6 images, and not a couple images as you trying to imply
(it had before you emptied all the category).
I guess you are trying to swift the topic. We can start talking how you did change official train station names erasing the local language only because it suited to you in spanish for political reasons. Your answer was: I do not understand english. So you have no credibility. We can see that with all the problem about the category. 9pm (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of double standard: In Category:Rail transport electrical substations in Spain the same user speedy deleted Category:Rail transport electrical substations in Catalonia with 3 files but the other subcategory with only 2 files was no problem. Even when the Category:Rail transport electrical substations in Catalonia matched with Category:Electrical substations in Catalonia. So you deleted useful information from another main category. I wait for any reasonable explanation 9pm (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mdaniels5757, if you tell me that's not the correct way for this kind of cases, I'm not going further that way. I take note. On the other hand, I have to say that the user 9pm has taken things to the extreme with this issue. I would be grateful if this person would stop creating problems by altering other users' categorization work to create his own 'space' when there are already other categories that fulfill the same functions. CFA1877 (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made the effort again to write on your talk page to make clear that how you are using the speedy deletion for your own benefit is not correct. 10 minuts later after replying in my talk page you apply again for the third time for speedy deletion.
Even if you try to swift the topic, here is the real issue: I'm still waiting for a response why the 2 categories were delete considering that every category of rail tracks has its own narrow gauge tracks and second the rail subelectrical stations in Catalonia was stick to electrical substations in Catalonia. Not only does not make the case for speedy deletion that you are also erasing proper categorization. 9pm (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:モトテツ

[edit]

Although repeatedly removing and warning in his talk page, this user didn't stop uploading unfree horse's statue picture; File:「讚ハイセイコ一号」像.jpg. Netora (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing warnings is not an issue. Started a DR for the uploaded file (because the previously deleted file per DR is not the same). Else, I will leave for my fellows. Regards, Aafi (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again User:Finoskov

[edit]

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]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=973401293"