Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.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	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	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	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}

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:Finoskov

User:Finoskov made the same errors since years. I tried to discuss with him in the past. Look at User talk:Finoskov#Category:Bugatti Type 28 and Category:Bugatti type 28 torpédo 1921 (Cité de l'Automobile), User talk:Finoskov# Second problem, User talk:Finoskov# Third problem, User talk:Finoskov#category-changes, User talk:Finoskov#D'Ieteren. No success.

One part is his matter with creating new categories, moving files from existing categories in his new categories and speedy deletion requests to the old=empty categories. Instead of moving categories. Losing category history, sometimes category talk pages, and often creating failures in articles in German and other wikipedias with links to commons.

Categories like Category:1920s Bugatti automobiles in the Musée National de l'Automobile. All files in the category must match the category name. Pictures showing older or younger Bugatti automobiles are not allowed. Pictures showing something else than Bugatti automobiles are not allowed. Pictures made elsewhere than in this museum are not allowed. But we find Category:Bugatti Prototype 28 torpedo (M.N.A.0310) 1921 (chassis 5001) with Category:Paris - Retromobile 2012 - Bugatti type 28 Torpedo made at an old car show in Paris. Wrong! Also we find Category:Bugatti Type 43 Graber roadster (M.N.A.0616) 1928 (chassis 43-258) with Category:Bugatti Type 43 Grand Sport 1928 (chassis 43-258), inclusive pictures made in Sweden in den 1930s, long before the opening of the museum.

Other example: Category:1921 automobiles in museums. We find Category:Ballot 3/8 LC biplace de course (Musée National de l'Automobile) with pictures made at Retromobile in Paris.

Category:Roadsters made in France was wrong in the past before I used Category talk:Roadsters made in France. No answer by Finoskov, only by another author.

Category:Voisin cabriolets (French language) with two subcategories. Category:Voisin C15 Charnico "Petit Duc" cabriolet 1928 (chassis 27 086) has at least one picture made in Netherlands: File:Avions-Voisin C15.jpg. Category:Voisin C30 Louis Dubos cabriolet 1938 (chassis 60 007) has only one picture, apparently made in Mullin Museum in USA: File:Avions Voisin C 30 Louis Dubos cabriolet 1938.jpg

The newest error and the reason for this message. Category:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) has one picture: File:Panhard & Levassor X29 Torpedo 1925 (6853815687).jpg, made at Bremen Motor Show in Bremen, Germany. Last weekend I removed the two wrong categories claiming that this car was not photographed in a museum. I used Category talk:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) with explanation and Ping to Finoskov. No answer. Today he made a revert without further details. --Buch-t (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buch-t: What here are you saying is an administrative issue, and what are you asking someone to do? Normally, content and categorization disagreements are not administrative matters. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I warned Finoskov several times years ago. One could consider removing ns Category access for, say, a month, hoping that they will change their behavior then. --Achim55 (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand ns in One could consider removing ns Category access for, say, a month....

I created the German articles to every Panhard & Levassor model in the past. For this reason I have a lot of this files and categories in my watch list. 2 two weeks I checked some edits made by Finoskov. I changed only some small things. I created some category talks, all with Ping to Finoskov. I hoped for comments. I received nothing. If he is not willing to discuss then he should avoid controversial things.

Category talk:Panhard & Levassor Type A2 tonneau fermé (M.N.A.2220) 1899 (chassis 474) wrong datas in the source. Dimensions normalisées L (longueur/length) = 292 ; la (largeur/width) = 280 ; h (hauteur/height) = 225. This car cannot be 280 cm width. Through Wikidata the wrong width came to Commons. I hoped for an answer like this: „Yes, it must be wrong, I deleted the width everywhere inclusive Wikidata.“ But nothing happened. If I change the width at wikidata then I expect a revert because the source wrote 280 cm width.
Category talk:Panhard & Levassor automobiles The sorting order is not clear. I had created my favorite beginning with T as Type in the past. Now he changed some, but not all, to sorting without Type. I started discussion. After that he changed more, but not all, to his favorite.
Category talk:Panhard & Levassor 6 CV Charrette Anglaise 1897. This car made in 1897 cannot be a Type A1/A2 which was introduced 1899. I am excited to see if I will be reverted here too.
Category talk:Panhard & Levassor X49 two-seater 20 CV Sport (M.N.A.6009) 1932 I wanted sources for this category. This Type 49 was not built 1932. Something is wrong.
Category talk:Panhard & Levassor automobiles by chassis number Here I wanted a description for his sorting order. And noted that his system (when I understand his system) is limited to chassis numbers up to 99999. But there are lot of cars of Panhard & Levassor with chassis numbers over 100000 and over 200000.
Category talk:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156)#Chassis number I noted that he created a category with this source. Note the question mark in Numéro de série : n° châssis 8156 ? The source is not sure about the chassis number. A 4-digit-number is not usual for a 1920 Panhard & Levassor. But Finoskov created the category with this name without stating any doubts.
Category talk:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156)#Categories wrong category tree (picture made in Bremen not in the museum in Mulhouse): I tried to explain things like this to Finoskov in the last years - problably withour success. I removed the wrong categories with edit comment and creating the category talk and sent Ping to Finoskov. He made re-revert without comment without using any talk page. This must be misuse of the revert function.

Regarding the problem that Finoskov creates new categories and then empties existing categories and has them deleted via a quick deletion request, I also found: Category:Talbot-Lago T26 Grand Sport Coupe Saoutchik 1948 and User talk:Túrelio, where Túrelio confirmed that Finoskov's approach is not compliant with the rules.

I want that Finoskov will follow the rules and discuss controversial cases. Apparently, he needs a clear message from an administrator, a requirement (I do not know the english word for Adminauflage which is used in the German wikipedia) or a block, at least for certain areas. --Buch-t (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buch-t: I think what Achim55 meant by "ns" in "ns Category" is "namespace". I would have switched the word order. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that it is my job to inform Finoskov. Done. --Buch-t (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last Saturday I wrote the message at User talk:Finoskov. He was very active during this time with 104 edits. In this time he did not writing anything here or at any talk page.

But he continued his own wrong system of category-renaming. He created new Category:Gaston Grümmer coachwork and moved files from the existing Category:Carrosserie Gaston Grümmer to his new category. After that the old and empty category was deleted by Taivo. We have three articles for this coachbuilding company. Viewing fr:Carrosserie Gaston Grümmer and clicking on Sur les autres projets Wikimedia : Carrosserie Gaston Grümmer, sur Wikimedia Commons, then you will see nothing. He destroyed the link to the Commons category. And this was in the French-language Wikipedia, his main language. Also note: he went his own way, not respecting the existing system. Why should the new name better than the old name? Where is the talk before? Nowhere I think.

I saw the problem of the necessary of changing links after moving or creating new categories in January 2023 and wrote on User talk:Finoskov#Category:Bugatti Type 28 and Category:Bugatti type 28 torpédo 1921 (Cité de l'Automobile). No success. If you go to fr:Bugatti Type 28 today and click on Wikimedia Commons, you still end up nowhere.

Summary of breaking the rules:

Misuse revert (like here, before his revert I started talk with Ping, he did not answer and did not write any explanation)
Wrong system with new categories instead of moving, described at Commons:Rename a category#Rename process – talks since 2019
Wrong main categories or subcategories (like in France) – talks since 2023
Keeping dead links to deleted categories (like fr:Carrosserie Gaston Grümmer) – talks since 2023
Ignoring the necessary of main categories (like Bugatti Type 28), described at Commons:Rename a category#Deleting the old category – talks since 2023
He avoids discussions. In January 2023 he wrote: Désolé pour écrire en français mais je ne maitrise pas assez l'anglais. My own English isn't very good either. Not wanting to discuss things, but instead going the own way and asserting himself, that is not possible in a collaborative work like Wikipedia. Commons:Rename a category#Types of renames, part Controversial fixes.

What will happen next? --Buch-t (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments?

Is he a rule breaker?

Are there ways to prevent him from breaking the rules again in the future?

If not, he can continue to do so for many years. --Buch-t (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I truly cannot follow most of the above, so let's take one case. @Buch-t, what is wrong with https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Panhard_%26_Levassor_Type_X29_Sport_20_torpedo_(M.N.A.2213)_1920-30_(chassis_8_156)&diff=next&oldid=946523224 ? - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sbb1413

User:Sbb1413 has accumulated a history of problem edits, identified by various editors on his talk page and his talk page archive.

Recently (September 7), he added the following note to his user page, under the section heading, Note on nudity:

Although I may often work on categories related to nudity, I personally don't tolerate nude people (except small children and topless males). However, I believe that Wikimedia projects are not censored. So, I make sure the media depicting nudity are given dedicated categories to avoid intolerant users like me facing media depicting nudity. (My underlining.)

This strikes me as a red flag concerning this editor's editing motivation. The categorisation of files in WikiCommons is for rational organisation of content, and for ease of navigation and search, not to hide things from one user because of his (self declared) intolerance. It looks like an abuse of editing rights to suit himself, and not for the good of the project.

User:Sbb1413 is enormously prolific so I have not been able to find any examples of him recategorising nudity – so far – because he is so prodigious that finding any trends in his approach is very hard, but he has been questioned and criticised in the past for wreaking large-scale disruption because of inadvisable actions, on a massive scale.

If he has organised or will organise nude material purely to suit his personal intolerance, the scale of disruption and potential restoration work could be overwhelming.

Would an administrator examine this situation and take action to prevent (or reverse?) large-scale abuse, please. Spideog (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, avoiding categorizing pictures of nude people in places where they would not typically be expected is entirely commendable, regardless of motivation. Someone scanning Category:People with toothbrushes should not be seeing the images in Category:Nude or partially nude people with toothbrushes unless they actively choose to. I'd also be all for a way to filter such images out of general search results, though we've never been able to work out a consensus on that. But the "law of least surprise" says you should not see a bunch of pictures of naked people when you are looking for something entirely unrelated.

FWIW, I'm very far from a prude. I am sure I have uploaded several hundred images of naked people myself (mostly, but by no means exclusively, body-painted; about half of them riding bicycles). I would not want someone to find these by default when they are looking for an image of, say, someone riding a bicycle in Seattle.

I see nothing wrong with what Sbb1413 is doing in this respect. Is there any substantive edit of theirs that you find objectionable, or do you just dislike what motivates their work? Because, basically, if their edits are productive, I think the latter is really not anyone else's business. - Jmabel ! talk 02:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this. Both on Wikimedia projects and elsewhere, the use of images containing gratuitous nudity or otherwise shocking content irrelevant to the topic is widely considered inappropriate - e.g. see en:w:MOS:OMIMG and en:w:WP:GRATUITOUS for enwiki's take on the matter. When people come to Commons searching for an image about a topic, most of those users will consider an image of that topic with nudity unsuitable for their purposes. Placing those images in a separate subcategory makes it easier for those users to find usable images - and, if they are looking for an image with nudity, it makes those images more discoverable. Omphalographer (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thirding this – I think it's more than reasonable and more so an act of courtesy rather than policy or guideline-related. Don't see anything that needs to be done to Sbb. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spideog: Yes, the above note on nudity is due to my recent contributions on categories related to nudity, and I sometimes do create nude categories by myself. Although I believe Commons is not censored (see babel), it does not mean that I can tolerate nudity, since nudity is rare among adults in India (except male toplessness, which is pretty common). My comment "So, I make sure the media depicting nudity are given dedicated categories to avoid intolerant users like me facing media depicting nudity" is valid, as no one should expect nude people in categories unrelated to nudity.

The categorisation of files in WikiCommons is for rational organisation of content, and for ease of navigation and search, not to hide things from one user because of his (self declared) intolerance. It looks like an abuse of editing rights to suit himself, and not for the good of the project.

It is indeed for the good for the project, as I mentioned "intolerant users like me", not "me as an intolerant user", as I think there might be other users who have similar issues. There's nothing to hide things from one user. If you want to see nude people standing, go to Category:Nude people standing, which is categorized under Category:People standing. The main categories are exclusively for clothed people, with nude people in subcats.

User:Sbb1413 is enormously prolific so I have not been able to find any examples of him recategorising nudity – so far – because he is so prodigious that finding any trends in his approach is very hard, but he has been questioned and criticised in the past for wreaking large-scale disruption because of inadvisable actions, on a massive scale.

I put nude people under nude categories only if such categories exist, otherwise I keep them under main categories. This is normal in categorization. Yes, I did a large-scale disruption in English Wikipedia, and I repeatedly seek apology for it. I'm currently more responsive while working in Wikimedia projects, including Commons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are instances where the actions of the users are actually considered inappropriate (that users disagree with others is to be expected, even more so if one's contributions aren't limited to 500 in 4 years), I think Spideog should be reminded not poke users over their sensibilities and apologize to Sbb1413 for reporting them here.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have to reword my notes on nudity, otherwise other users would complain me for something I have never done here. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8diq

8diq (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

9 copyright violations, and more on enwiki today. Their only upload I can find that wasn’t deleted is taken from a Reddit post three years ago. Northern Moonlight (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. User is warned, copyvios deleted. Taivo (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They just did two more copyrighted uploads after your last warning. Northern Moonlight (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for a week, all copyright violations already deleted. Yann (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chrymedia as sockpuppet

Per an overlap in uploads with other socks in this sock drawer (such as Sleevachan and Csmegb), I'm inclined to believe that Chrymedia is another account belonging to a paid employee of the Syro-Malabar Church. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting the photos that I uploaded? If there is copyright issues, upload the same from your end. I have included the reference in the page where you get the coat of arms. Also, please allow to paste the good photo of the Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabar Church from the website. Chrymedia (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are admitting to a copyright violation. @Chrymedia: stop trying to upload copyright violations and stop opening new accounts. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what is the copyright violation? Chrymedia (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the Major Archbishop's photo from the official website of Syro-Malabar Church with the link. Chrymedia (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrymedia: Please have an authorized official of the Syro-Malabar Church send permission via VRT. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: A request for check user would be useful. Yann (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurately claimed works

Dftad 55 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Dear all,

@Dftad 55 continuously upload works claimed to be personal works when they are obviously not (ex. paintings) while no reliable source is provided to claim works are under the designated licenses. @R Prazeres already left a warning but without any effect to date. Moumou82 (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you discuss this with them and try to explain what the issues are?

We all know how hostile the Commons system is, and the upload tools that fail to explain the issues involved. We should be very generous to new editors here, especially when their work is probably perfectly allowable, so long as the metadata is fixed. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained the issue to them and invited them to ask questions on their talk page, but there's no response and they've continued doing the same since. It's not clear to me if they're ignoring the notices or if they don't read English well enough (though the fact that they're editing and adding pictures and templates to the English Wikipedia makes me doubt the latter point). R Prazeres (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I should add that while the early uploads look like possible old paintings that potentially could fall into PD (but by no means something I would assume), some of the more recent photos are less likely to be PD as they concern more recent subjects. Something like this is obviously a recent photo that they did not take themselves ([1]). R Prazeres (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I sent a last warning, and deleted a few obvious copyvios. I support a partial block (only uploading), so that this user could fix their uploads, but not import more files. Yann (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Yann for your action, however it does not seem to have produced effects as the same type of uploads continues. Moumou82 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Factfinder1125

Factfinder1125 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions). See their talk page. A pattern of repeatedly uploading Loretta Smith photo that's obviously not their own and marking them as their own and re-uploading when it gets deleted. Graywalls (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I warned the user. All uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YatIznassenRif96

YatIznassenRif96 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) - clearly a sockpuppet of the Iznassen sockpuppetry: see https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=26604276#Global_lock_for_LTA. Wikiwerner (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I found Assen96 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) yet. Could you block this account too? Wikiwerner (talk) 09:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yann (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And RifIznassen9696 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)? Re-uploaded a recently deleted file still on my watchlist. Thank you (in advance) again! Wikiwerner (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mommy Debby

User: Mommy Debby (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: For years, I have been railing against incomplete deletion requests, which are caused by malformed use of {{Delete}} templates and lack of follow-through, and which are populating subcats of Category:Incomplete deletion requests. This problem spurred the creation of that category 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC), over 17 years ago, and my tracking of it 18:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC), nearly four years ago.

As precedents, ColorfulSmoke was blocked 17:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC) by Mdaniels5757 with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page", pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 29#ColorfulSmoke and was ultimately blocked indefinitely, and Alex Neman was blocked 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC) by Yann with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page" pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 34#Alex Neman.[reply]

Mommy Debby made this deleted edit on or about 11 June 2023 (UTC): omitting reason, subpage, proper transclusion, notice to the page creator, year, month, and day. I reminded her of her mistake and warned her in these edits 11:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC), creating User talk:Mommy Debby#Warning. She did not reply. She did it again in these deleted edits on or before 17 June 2023 (UTC). I notified and warned her in this edit 10:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC). She did it again in each of these nine edits in the seven minutes leading up to 23:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC), starting with this one. She also has a long history of uploading copyvios and vandalism after warnings. Please block her, as "We cannot work here with people who are not willing to follow our procedures, in particular for deletion requests."[reply]

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: I see you recently placed a vandalism warning on her page without indicating what constituted vandalism. Could you specify that, because repeated vandalism is a lot simpler basis to block. It is much more clear-cut to block someone for malicious acts than ones that might just be occasional incompetence. - Jmabel ! talk 20:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: It was the nine unreasonable manual deletion tags on 10 November and the page blanking of the same group of files on 5 November. She seems to have been bearing some ill will towards the logos of TVRI since 24 October 2023. Vandalism warnings were given 11:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC) and 10:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done blocked for a month. - Jmabel ! talk 20:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:氏子

氏子 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). COM:OVERWRITE violation after warning. See: File:人居67模型.jpg, File:紐西蘭國家住屋模型.jpg, File:Cité du Grand Parc模型.jpg.--125.230.77.83 07:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Overwriting one's own files with minor improvements should be OK. Yann (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Miguel Inigo Mercadal2

Miguel Inigo Mercadal2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is a new user unfamiliar with Commons copyright and syntax rules. He is not inputting a direct link to his uploads but only claiming a vague source, even after being asked (e.g. File:Mayon eruption 1928 image.jpg with source as "Fabulous Philippines" with no link to this). He left badly edited comments of my user page. Could an administrator keep an eye of him. Pierre cb (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Katuni5

Katuni5 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, aside from mass spam uploads of identical files, has decided to begin raving on my talk page and on the request for deletion of one of his files with insults and threats and accused me of being a Chinese communist. An hour after he made these rants, a South Korean IP showed up to put two deletion requests on two files, one I had uploaded and one I had updated. While I do find this funny I know it's going to get annoying in the future, so I'd figure I'd head it off at the pass here. NorthTension (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for a month. Such language is not acceptable. I also blocked Special:Contributions/2001:2D8:6940:2908:0:0:0:0/64 for a week. Yann (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SexEdCouple

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

Not here to build an encyclopedia, only upload is porn with a creepy description Dronebogus (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lolulu09877

Lolulu09877 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I was browsing a wikiproject's pages when images that looked similar to ones I took so I looked closer and it turns out that User:Lolulu09877 has been using images uploaded to social media and claiming authorship. I went through some of his uploads and flagged them. The others should also be checked. Gachago (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Last warning sent, I deleted all files from Facebook, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lolulu09877 for the rest. Yann (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimadari

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

429 remaining uploads, many which are obviously not own works. All files need a check. Please help. Yann (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you tagging their uploads for speedy deletion as "no permission" ? [2]

This is not valid as a speedy deletion. There is clearly a permission given. If you disagree that this claimed licence is valid, then so be it - but that's not the same thing at all, an it can't be addressed through an undiscussed speedy deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is very unlikely to be own work, so the permission is not valid. Yann (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is both not the same thing as 'no permission' and also not falling under the simple issues that can be dealt with as speedy deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broz1014

Broz1014 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Hi, This user uploaded many US decorated car license plates as own works. Help needed to check them all by someone more familiar with this specific issue (i.e. State copyright and threshold of originality). Yann (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rodigou3

Rodigou3 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

The user continues to upload images of dubious origin through license laundering (uploads photos to Flickr and then uploads them here on Wikimedia Commons). He has been warned about his uploads for months, but prefers to continue doing so. Taichi (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for a month. This user should have been blocked long ago. Yann (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Massimiliano Iacono

Massimiliano iacono (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Long-time abuser, already banned (multiple times) on it.wiki for self-promotion. The user is a pathological liar who's spamming entirely made-up projects and collaborations on any platform allowing external edits (including, for reasons unknown, the Dragon Trainer's Fandom wiki). Now he's taking roots here in Common, uploading his non-sense and creating his usual self-promotional pages.

By personal experience, I strongly recommend stopping this "contributor" with extreme prejudice, banning him and systematically deleting all his contributions. -- Rojelio (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked and nuked here and on Wikidata. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rojelio: Should they return under a new account, I recommend you file a global lock request. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kzunamrai2

Kzunamrai2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Through the copyvio warn, this user didn't stop uploading copyvio portraits File:Keichi inoue 03.jpg. Netora (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the notice, blocked for a month. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew091870

Could somebody please check and revert the edits by Special:Contributions/Matthew091870? Example. Probably something also needs to be done regarding the user, like at least a talk page message. There are many cases like this where people write to structured data to pollute files' data without people noticing (because SD-changes are barely watched and are not seen by most users). I hope there is some automatic method where users' contributions are flagged as needing review if a large share of them were reverted or similar and I don't know of any other place to report contribs of which many seem flawed. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: I reverted a dozen edits and warned the user twice. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Contents

User:Finoskov

User:Sbb1413

8diq

Chrymedia as sockpuppet

Inaccurately claimed works

User:Factfinder1125

YatIznassenRif96

Mommy Debby

User:氏子

User:Miguel Inigo Mercadal2

User:Katuni5

SexEdCouple

Lolulu09877

Wikimadari

Broz1014

Rodigou3

Massimiliano Iacono

User:Kzunamrai2

Matthew091870

Navigation menu

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

User:Finoskov

User:Sbb1413

8diq

Chrymedia as sockpuppet

Inaccurately claimed works

User:Factfinder1125

YatIznassenRif96

Mommy Debby

User:氏子

User:Miguel Inigo Mercadal2

User:Katuni5

SexEdCouple

Lolulu09877

Wikimadari

Broz1014

Rodigou3

Massimiliano Iacono

User:Kzunamrai2

Matthew091870

Navigation menu

Search