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
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
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:Pammee help me !

[edit]

This editor has been warned about their copyright violations and notices have been placed on their talk page regarding the deletion of their images dating back to September. All messages have been ignored, and their copyright violations continue. Their most recent upload (File:Athenina 1.jpg) on December 1 is yet another copyright violation. They appear to have no interest in addressing the issues with their images, nor any interest in complying with our copyright policy. I recommend an indefinite block until such time as they agree to abide by our policies. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, file deleted. If uploads continue, they should be blocked much longer, as they are also probably out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enhancing999, again

[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.
I am totally uninvolved, I have not participated in his discussions and even not voted in his RfA. Commons is a collaborative project, where users must hear each other and modify their behavior according to that. "I am the only correct here and all else are wrong" is not a proper attitude here. As we have clear consensus to block, the only question is lenght of the block. In my opinion one week is at moment enough, but if Enhancing does not change his behavior, the next blocks must be longer. Taivo (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enhancing999 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  was brought to this noticeboard in October. Most of the users involved in the linked AN/UP thread supported a block, but the discussion was archived without any resolution.

In short, they have an extremely narrow interpretation of COM:CSD#C2 that other members of the community have repeatedly told them is incorrect, have taken it upon themselves to try to force their interpretation by attempting to police/micromanage other users, and have committed a number of conduct issues in doing so. Since that AN/UP thread, Enhancing999 has continued the same behavior (this AN thread, this thread on my talk page). Other conduct issues not directly related to categories were also raised in their recent, unanimously opposed RfIA.

In light of all of this, I think Enhancing999 has demonstrated that they don't have the temperament for working in a collaborative environment, so I am reopening the block discussion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Pinging original discussion participants @Yann, Pi.1415926535, A.Savin, Bastique, Krd, Jmabel, Jeff G., L. Beck, Abzeronow, GPSLeo, SHB2000, and Enhancing999: The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1] and [2].
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those appear to support what you claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He refers to his false statement without correcting it.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link? You keep referring to 'his false statement' and 'deletion of this so that non-admins can't find it'. Yet you haven't linked to it, or linked to anything that supports such a claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "this can't be verified by non-admins as the edits are deleted". It refers to Yann's statement accusing me of "edit-warring with Lukas Beck over deletion of Category:1922 in rail transport in Switzerland". That category is currently deleted so non-admins can't check it.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What problem is Enhancing999 causing here? What is the smallest action we can take to resolve that? I see blocking as excessive. I'm really not seeing much apart from the CSD#C2 issues, so maybe some topic-based restriction on that? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mhm, I think it's worth mentioning his approach and choice of words towards various users and the fact that he never misses an opportunity to defame and badmouth these users. Is there a rule for sensible and fair cooperation that could be used as a basis here? Lukas Beck (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We would hope that putting oneself up at RfA and that then turning into a discussion about blocking you instead would be a hint that there's some behavioural issue going on, such that you have to reconsider your way of working. We can only hope that this point makes its way through to Enhancing999. If it doesn't, then I'd be supporting blocking – but as yet, let's stay hopeful. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember Lukas Beck being up for Admin, but he was close to getting blocked for his badmothing.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as predicted, you Enhancing999, have worked so diligently here in an AN posting all about you, that I would now definitely support a block. Well done. Result. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your cautious approach, but you should keep in mind that there was already a block request a few weeks ago that didn't come to a decision and the user hasn't improved much since then. How many warnings should a user receive before we start taking action? Lukas Beck (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is this example too. I am taking part in this discussion and should be kicked out by the user in question because his block application against me came to the conclusion that no further action is necessary. The user is not insulting anyone, admittedly. But I also think that it doesn't always take any bad words to behave disrespectfully towards a person and Enhancing999 likes to use this approach. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide diffs for your accusation of defamation.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak support The user often contributes quite constructively it seems. Also had some fairly nonconstructive personal discussion experiences with the user. I don't think a quite long or indef block is due but there's other options such as topic-based restrictions and/or temporary block and I have not looked into it sufficiently to know which action would be due but some action probably is. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak oppose per Andy Dingley. I would support some kind of topic ban to end both these quarrels about deletion of empty categories and the resulting block discussions. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is much more than "deletion of empty categories". It is a general behavior issue. Yann (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak support per Andy Dingley. The unaniamously opposed RfA didn't seem to give them any hint that their behavior is at odds with a collaborative project. I reluctantly agree that a block may be necessary to prevent problems. Abzeronow (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support The last sentence of “The Squirrel Conspiracy” sums it up perfectly. --Msb (talk) 19:11, 5 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.


User:Oklahoma01

[edit]

Oklahoma01 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  : new user uploading fake images of the non-existant Federal Republic of East Africa and copyvio of others. Pierre cb (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Two more warnings, and everything's deleted. Yann (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Consuls.feints

[edit]

Consuls.feints (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Continues to upload copyvios after warnings All the Best -- Chuck Talk 03:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added source that permits resharing with terms for it. Please check again 2001:44C8:4050:197A:C13A:5D25:7577:B5F7 04:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't edit logged out. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't blocked, so all that does is reveal your IP adress, as well as not helping your case. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass vandalism/falsification on 'Slavic' issues

[edit]

195.12.232.227 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
195.12.232.251 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
2001:9e8:54d4:7a00:e83c:352c:aa30:27f (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
2001:9e8:54e7:c400:6cd7:136:8233:5287 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
2001:9E8:54D4:E800:E17B:28B6:CD6D:F281 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
93.132.166.138 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
93.135.40.112 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
83.135.190.74 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
Over the last couple of weeks, I have encountered a years-long (since 2022 at least) campaign of adding very dubious and POV-driven categories to a host of unrelated things. E.g. 'Slavic' and 'Church Slavonic' from Byzantine emperors ([3]), ancient frescos ([4] or [5]), Roman saints (1st-century saint is a Slav) that predate the arrival of Slavs to topics that concern the Turkic Bulgars ([6] or [7]) before their Slavicization, or the Arab Abgarids ([8]) as well as the wholesale invention of things like Category:Slavic astronomy, which should give you an idea of the POV at play. This activity also seems to very strongly overlap with attempts to add the term 'Lechitic' (almost everything in Category:Lechitic nobility was added by one of the IPs of this campaign, apparently per the Lechina Empire hoax/fringe theory) or 'Bohemian' or 'Varangian' etc (e.g. a momument to the medieval Bulgarian tsar Samuel has a Bulgarian lion, but this is a 'Ruthenian' lion) to a whole lot of different Slavic topics, presumably in an attempt to make all Slavs part of one 'Slavic' super-nation? (e.g. a Serbian noble family is now also 'Bohemian', while the founders of the Second Bulgarian Empire, who were of mixed ethnic origin, are now Slavs, Varangians and Volga Bulgarians all at once). The edits happen by different IP addresses usually originating in the Netherlands or Germany, but this does not have to mean anything; they correlate strongly with the blocked user Sibinia (talk · contribs) (cf. [9]) as well as Lchunter (talk · contribs), who in a similar spirit of ecumenical protochronism has added such things as 'Hun nobility' to a lot of pages (e.g. the Hungarian king Matthias Corvinus or the Byzantine house of Laskaris), only to also connect the Magyars to the Lechites ([10]), so in the end all are one, namely Slavs. This is a difficult case to address, as the edits have been on a massive scale, there is no single account, and every day there are one or two IPs going about this sort of thing (I have listed above a handful, there are many more). Pinging also @Future Perfect at Sunrise: and @Silar: , whom have seen engaged in reverting this sort of edits before. Constantine ✍ 08:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those appear to boil down to 195.12.232.0/24, 2001:9e8:5400::/40, and 93.132.166.138/24, and 93.135.0.0/16 in ASNs with ranges 195.12.224.0/19, 2001:9e8:4000::/35, and 93.132.0.0/14 (the last of which is too big).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this here. This is long-term abuser User:Kriestovo Nysian aka User:Sibinia (the latest named sock account I've been aware of was User:Vřetíle); I've been aware of them for a couple of years now but it's very tiresome to clean up after them. Their editing is a strange mixture of sometimes being merely pedantic (e.g. creating huge amounts of over-categorization), sometimes genuinely misguided (e.g. mislabeling Greek-language artifacts as Church Slavonic because of the similarity of scripts), often tendentious, and sometimes downright vandalistic (deliberate invention of artefacts and falsification of sources). And they are quite unique among the disruptive users I've known in that their vandalism and POV-pushing rarely manifests itself in article edits, but instead in creating "walled gardens" of metadata links, creating tangled webs of Commons categories, Wikidata entries, images, image metadata, and Wikidata-driven infoboxes, all of that with a view of pushing some bizarre POV notions about ancient Slavs. They are usually at least as active on Wikidata as they are here. We'd need a simple way of radically nuking everything they do and add, across projects and namespaces, for every new IP they use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere, @Aafi, How much overlap (if at all) is there between the commons and wikidata admin corps? @Future Perfect at Sunrise, Global rollback and Writ keeper's Mass rollback script should do the trick. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 22:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked 2 accounts. For the IPs, please create a request for check user. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kriestovo Nysian. Constantine ✍ 15:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann @Future Perfect at Sunrise, I can do the cleanup (with massrollback) if needed. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 19:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Note that several IPs in the 2001:9E8:5400:0:0:0:0:0/40 range have been active right through yesterday. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: massrollback is not doing the job for me at present, but I rolled back these edits for you manually, going back to 1 December.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It's unfortunately to be expected that mechanical mass rollback won't work for all cases here, because a lot of the edits are page creations (new categories or image uploads), or sequences of multiple socks/IPs editing the same page, so there'll often be no clean version to revert to. BTW, is there anything we can do about the created pages? Does Commons even have a policy that pages/files created by ban-evading socks can be speedily deleted, or would everything have to go through regular deletion requests? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This falls under CSD G3 All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The abuser is currently aggressively revert-warring under 89.245.176.239 and again the 2001:9E8:5400:0:0:0:0:0/40 range. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And through new account User:Romnsrcs. Can somebody block please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
83.135.190.0/24 is another stable, small range that would be worth blocking (has been used exclusively by the vandal for a year, and has been quite active throughout the last days.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock of Solman9

[edit]

Honoor2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  without any doubt a sockpuppet of Solman9 (see my previous report), a long-term problematic editor who is doing damage for years and is always coming back. The same edits, the same targeted subjects (Ahvaz), the same modus operandi like playing with categories and uploading copyrighted material... I suggest a block and deletion of uploaded images. --Orijentolog (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on posting pictures that do not reflect the city's character but rather distort its general image with your suspicious photos? I will file a complaint against you for defaming an Arab city inhabited by Arabs in the Ahvaz region." Honoor2 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Orijentolog: See COM:RFCU.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I know about it, just this is too obvious to waste checkusers' time. --Orijentolog (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd, can you Handle this? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They require evidence in the form of diffs.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. the contrib they linked is pretty damning, they literally just reverted Orijentolog. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a waste of time. If we have a CU request, all information is in one place. Krd 19:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Exceptionalmagic

[edit]

The two active confirmed members have been in the habit of adding all sorts of copyright violating pictures here, many of which are up for deletion independently. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 09:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: I requested a global lock for you at m:srg#Global lock for Exceptionalmagic and socks.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. I think that makes a great deal of sense. Thank you. It was either going to be that out a local decision here. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 10:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. The users are blocked. I deleted their contributions due to different reasons. Taivo (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whatthesigmaskibidifanumtax21

[edit]

Whatthesigmaskibidifanumtax21 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Obvious troll whose mass spam reverting files, has a deletion request out for my userpage for some reason. NorthTension (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I closed that DR as obviously frivolous. Abzeronow (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I blocked this account, VOA, probably a sock. Yann (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yara Naziya

[edit]

Yara Naziya (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) This user uploading a copyright-protected TV posters. 茅野ふたば (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I mass deleted all uploads. No activity after your warning, so block is currently not needed. Taivo (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil behavior of Colin McLaughlin

[edit]

Colin McLaughlin (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  in a DR after I asked him to avoid personal attacks, he proceded insulting me using with the term "fussy kraut", see Special:Diff/967601123. Note that "kraut" is a racist slur to name a German, see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kraut. After I asked not to insult me, he instead of apologizing said he meant to call me a "cabbage" and proceed again to insult me, see Special:Diff/967643915. Note that it is not the first time that Collin insults people when someone opens a DR, see Special:Diff/631048896. I understand that some discussions can get heated, but we should not tolerate this level of gratuitous uncivil behavior. Günther Frager (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Indeed. Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fake-image uploader blocked

[edit]

For the record: I've 1-year-blocked Professor Moriarty 1 (talk · contribs) for uploading at least 3 faked/manipulated images of living persons and scores of copyvios. --Túrelio (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AbchyZa22

[edit]

AbchyZa22 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) The user keeps uploading company logos, some of which were removed for overstepping the terms of COM:TOO (it seems he's trying to alter the conditions in Wikimedia Commons pages to keep certain controversial logos), and has been uploading some images with copyright issues, despite having been blocked several times. The latest incident was the upload of a derivative image taken directly from a hosting service (including its watermark). Taichi (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Taichi:A ver los logos simples que yó publique está en el Dominio Público ({{PD-textlogo}}) ,no se puede remover según COM:Copyright rules (are logos simples are OK). AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AbchyZa22, ¿Por qué estás subiendo logos en formato jpg? Es mal formato para todos los imagines de logos porque tienen artefactos. Especialmente los logos que crees de las SVGs como asi! Por favor, no creas las JPGs de esas! Cree las PNGs! Ve a ver {{Convert to PNG}} Bastique ☎ let's talk! 00:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Taichi: it would help a lot if you would point at particular files you think are problematic rather than effectively saying "look through all of his uploads, some of them are bad." Also "trying to alter the conditions in Wikimedia Commons pages" is extremely vague, please provide links. - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At a quick look, about 20% of AbchyZa22's uploads have been deleted. That is a very seat-of-the-pants estimate, though. - Jmabel ! talk 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: If the user continues to make 20% of uploads that conflict with copyright, even after two administrative blocks, something is not right. The user should stop uploading after his first block. Don't worry Jmabel, if you want to reject the request in your lax way, I don't object, but what the user does after this is recorded and if I see repetitions of the same problem, I will take into account your considerations, which I do not share. This my last comment. Taichi (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. @AbchyZa22 has been very active in asking questions about their uploads, seeing if these are okay or not, as you can see by several topics on my user talk page. I also think some of these nominations are edge cases. I believe they have good faith and are learning. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 00:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Well, there are some things about AbchyZa22 that are uncommon, in my interactions here in Commons. First, although they are a bit too insistent at times, they often ask when in doubt. I do think they are learning, and that is okay, but it's not okay to pretend to be always learning by making mistakes repeatedly. They should simply not upload images with dubious copyright, and then ask about them. First ask, then upload, but only when in doubt (don't ask everything! be bold but at the same time be cautious). I've had some interactions with AbchyZa22 and think they are well-spirited but I don't find acceptable their behaviour in the long-term. And the latest copyright violation warnings don't help. Bedivere (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OddHerring

[edit]

Note that this follows closely on https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Vandalism&oldid=969042909#Kontributor_2K started by OddHerring - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OddHerring (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
There has been an edit-war on these two files:

The subject was about the unilateral decision to declare these files superseded by the user's newly-created versions that currently stand on top of the pages of the files above.
Incidentally, some categories have been removed on the first user action (file #1, file #2) (although there was no miscategorisation, as shown by the fact that user's files have been has been properly categorised in these), which I didn't notice straight away, to me what was likely to trigger an edit-war was in first place the inclusion of the {{Superseded}} template instead of inserting the new files as other versions in a neutral way.
One can acknowledge that there has been an attempt at dialogue, for the user came to my talk page, but first with a {{Uw-vandalism2}} (diff) and then, later, with a “I don't want to be mean, but this is pretty childish behavior. Come on man.” (diff); I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of users who'd enjoy to discuss with it, but I have to admit I'm not one of them.
Eventually, should I care about the fact that some files have been unilaterally declared superseded? I don't think that stating a file as other version rather than superseding one does any harm to one or the other, whereas it would be difficult to assert the opposite while claiming to remain neutral.
Anyway I'm also here now because the subject of the decategorisation mentioned above has already been addressed in this request, among other facts, and although that's easy to fix it still hasn't been done, suggesting that the files are bound to be left as is
Of course I won't act on this for I've been warned not to edit-warring. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There. I fixed the decategorisation issue.
Also, "unilateral decision", "unilaterally declared superseded"
It's kind of hard not to make a "unilateral decision" when other people refuse to talk to you about the issue and just continue edit warring. OddHerring (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Come on man” Let's keep neutral, some users may find that other files supersed yours, thus filling these as other version instead of superseding is fine for everyone. It's the same in the case some user declares your own fies superseded.. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree. @OddHerring please change "superseded" to "other version" and let the end project decide which version they prefer to use. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 16:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? My version is more accurate. OddHerring (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main point in heraldry is the blazonning, any design can be chosen without making the arms invalid. Thus, other versions are as valid as yours, whatever the color shades chosen or the eagle's design. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment by Alachuckthebuck: Reminder to stay civil and that rather than edit warring over versions, just create new ones. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If your version is "more accurate" then it's incumbent upon you to convince the end projects of such. "superseded" is not appropriate here, when your version in fact, does not, supersede the others Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remjeud, Chrymedia, and mass copyvios

[edit]

Once again reporting the upload of a massive number of copyvios in the Indian Christian subject area. Please review the many copyright violations and intentionally false licensing tags on Remjeud's edits. Relatedly, Chrymedia has uploaded further copyvios and returned the same pool of Syro-Malabar photos previously uploaded by Sleevachan-type socks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please file this at com:RFCU. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 02:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=969200867"