Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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 four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
  • It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Edit warring and unaterially closing a CfD by User:Orijentolog

[edit]

Can an admin please look at the edit history of Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Towers in Iran and deal with User:Orijentolog's waring bullshit? Adamant1 (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in discussing with this person, because he opens discussions with the aim of harassing, accusing and insulting, and he unilaterally removes proper categories all around, thereby disrupting the categorization tree that has been built for years. --Orijentolog (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't participate in the CfD then. You don't own the categories and you can't just close a CfD after a day and one person commenting just because you don't agree with it. I have every right to start a CfD to discuss with other users if a category system makes sense or not. The only problem here is your petty, uncollaborative attitude and ownership issues.

Also look at the edit history of Category:Buildings in Babolsar by shape where they also reverted me and @Fralambert: multiple times. There's absolutely zero reason I should have had to report his uncollaborative edit waring nonsense twice. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fralambert obviously intended to remove Wikidata template, as he explained on the sister project, not to delete valid category which is not empty. Opening discussions with false accusations and insults (like that something is "beyond my ability to understand") is not only a violation of the project rules, but is below the level of civilized discussion. --Orijentolog (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear you didn't understand what I was telling you. I was just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that it was something you were confused about. It's not like you haven't repeatedly insulting me over and over since this whole thing started though. So spare me the cry bullying. It's still not an excuse to unilaterally close a CfD that had only been open for a day and had commenter anyway. You were clearly just looking for a excuse to shut the conversation down. So I could give a crap. It's not your call to make if other people can discuss it or not just because you created the categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understood very well, but you continued with misbehavior. And it should be noted that such an arrogant approach has cost you several blocks lately, while I haven't had a single penalty in 15 years of activity. --Orijentolog (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What misbehavior? People are allowed to open CfDs dude. It's only an issue because your turned it into one. And your whole "arrogant approach" comment is exactly I'm talking about with the cry bullying. How dare I say you weren't understanding my explanation but it's totally cool for you to call me arrogant. Right. Right. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User Adamant1 seems to have a habbit of insulting others in discussion pages and opening very problematic deletion requests. He has been blocked for that in the past and should be given permanent block. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes. @Orijentolog you can just ignore the annoyance, which will soon move on to new targets and forget about you. :p RZuo (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: Multiple administrators disagree with Orijentolog's actions here and they even got an in edit war with one of them. I know your just being an opportunist here, but you might want to think about if it's worth support that kind of behavior just because of some petty personal beef. For all the hemming and hawing from people like you about how I act I'm certainly not out there anywhere getting an edit wars with administrators. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the close. Orijentolog was too involved to close this CfD. Abzeronow (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a temporary block. This thread shouldn't be about Adamant1's conduct (despite how the comments are going), but it's evident that Orijentolog refuses to take responsibility at hand and I can't see this being resolved through any other means other than a short block. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree with SHB2000's proposal. I also would support a warning to RZuo for civility, as they should know better at this point. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp

[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO we shouldn't have just an open section about a user -- need some diffs to substantiate "long history". — Rhododendrites talk |  13:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this ANU complaint should be not about long history of inappropriate behaviour (though there definitely is such), but about this terrible and unsubstantial accusation in particular. Because, if this is left unsanctioned, this of course would be a clear message to him and others that this kind of comments are tolerated in general. Please remember, that blocks are not punitive but preventative. --A.Savin 19:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 55#User:Charlesjsharp, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 80#Charlesjsharp, and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 62#Charlesjsharp.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of those is good evidence, really. Maybe I'm used to the enwp way of doing ANI, but usually new sections without a bunch of diffs about a long-time user just get speedily closed. Not saying there's no merit here -- just needs more effort to substantiate. — Rhododendrites talk |  01:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: We really need some recent evidence, i.e. not stuff from five-nine years ago. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 20:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charlesjsharp accused publicly A.Savin of having an illegal conduct and this can be considered as defamation (criminal offence). Charlesjsharp seems to have adopted an illegal conduct that requires exemplary sanction. Charlesjsharp also has a long history of attacking people. - Examples : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ann-Sophie_Qvarnstr%C3%B6m#Discussion%20on%20deleting%20this%20article commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:House_sparrow_feeding_behaviour.jpg - Charlesjsharp had immunity all these years because he posted pictures of animals but it is time that he learns that unacceptable behavior can't stay unpunished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:ad30:4940:c927:876e:e855:ea82 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accused of attacking El Golli Mohamed but he complimented the El Golli Mohamed and suggested an improvement - Excellent quality, but if you cropped, I think the crop is too tight top and bottom
  • Their criticism of getting too close to a nest is valid IMO
Perhaps charlesjsharp does come across as short and as someone who doesn't suffer fools. And some of the diffs go back years. I think an admonishment to be less grumpy and not to bite users would be appropriate Gbawden (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think, if you claim the "nesting bird" comment to be valid, then you are doing the same libel as Charlesjsharp and are subject to a block as well. It was already explained several times why the accusation is invalid, no need to repeat. --A.Savin 10:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Methinks you are a bit agressive threating to block a fellow admin for having an opinion Gbawden (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every opinion is compatible with Commons guidelines and also with the UCoC... so for instance, an insult is also an opinion... that is, if I insult you that means I have a certain (not high) opinion on you which I tell in public, but nonetheless I would have to expect a block for saying that opinion, because according to our rules it's harassment or personal attack which is prohibited and usually sanctioned with a block... Perhaps you aren't aware, but hey, there are further admins who are not aware of UCoC, of guidelines, of common etiquette etc... --A.Savin 11:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be closed as producing more heat than light. There are a variety of valid complaints that can be levied at Charles -- including some I'd probably agree with -- but this is just an effortless free-for-all of past grievances. If any of the parties here want to agree to an interaction ban, fine, but otherwise I'd invite anyone to come back after taking the time to put together a halfway decent case backed by a whole bunch of unimpeachable diffs. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that mean you agree I did criminal offence, or does that mean Charlesjsharp is allowed to accuse publicly of criminal offences because he is kind of a judge or something, or otherwise special and above all guidelines? --A.Savin 17:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've both made legal accusations/insinuations about the other, no? "Libel" and "slander", with references to WMF Legal? I'm not at all saying that what Charles said was ok. Quite the opposite. Even if I agreed with him on the substance of the claim about the bird, which I don't, his approach was poor and opening this ANU thread was not good judgment. I'd be bothered if I were you, too. That said, I think GPSLeo more or less said what needed to be said in the other thread. That's more or less what I'm saying here -- that we don't need yet another thread unless someone's going to do the hard work of producing more evidence. Until someone does that, IMO it should be closed. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So El Golli Mohamed gets blocked for 2 weeks because he said an insult after being harassed by permanent attacks of Charlesjsharp and Charlesjsharp commits a crime (defamation-slander) and should get away with it ?! Two different ethnics, two different treatments, with as always white privilege ! Shocking. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2603:6011:8400:AE6:488E:E5E5:3DFA:6506 (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, El Golli Mohamed was blocked for two weeks last April for saying to Charlesjsharp, (this is verbatim) "Fuck you." If you can point at something similar from Charlesjsharp, I will gladly make a similar block. This has nothing to do with ethnicity. - Jmabel ! talk 05:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ya think. Wolverine XI 12:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      '**** you' from El Golli Mohamed (Tunisian) against Charlesjsharp = insult = small infringement = 2 weeks block
      Defamation from Charlesjsharp (British) against A.Savin = criminal offence = infinitely worse = no sanction ?!
      Two different ethnics = two different treatments because of white man privilege
      Charlesjsharp publicly accusing A.Savin of committing criminal activity = defamation
      commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Close_wing_Basking_of_Athyma_perius_(Linnaeus,_1758)_-_Common_Sergeant_(4)_WLB.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=920599782 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:644:4384:C900:10F7:2462:CA6E:6458 (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How is this IP involved in any of this, if may ask? Wolverine XI 14:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes --A.Savin 23:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bedivere

[edit]

Bedivere recognizes that deleting RAN's files was a mistake. I suggest caution towards each others files and edits, at least for some time. Yann (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I do not think that @Bedivere: should have access to admin tools. They are involved in a harassment campaign against me. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) where they nominated 423 of my uploads as revenge for reversing a single edit they had made. I am pinging @Andy Dingley: who wrote: "(targeted at any editor here) is the sort of action that raises very real concerns over the fitness of an admin". Now Bedivere has used their admin rights to delete more files after promising to disengage after my first complaints. Here is the new batch deleted out of process: File:Emile Kellogg Boisot (1859-1941) probate in The Pasadena Post of Pasadena, California on February 9, 1941.jpg File:Marion Boisot (1897-1990) and Byington Ford (1890-1985) engagement in The San Francisco Examiner of San Francisco, California on November 7, 1920.jpg File:Marion Boisot (1897-1990) engagement photograph in The San Francisco Examiner of San Francisco, California on November 7, 1920.jpg I don't think they have the level of maturity or the temperament to have access to admin tools, if they are using the tools for revenge and harassment. Is this the place to ask to their access to admin tool to be revoked? RAN (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My actions were based on policy and were not personal or retaliatory. The files in question were reviewed and deleted according to Commons' guidelines, and I have always acted with transparency. If you believe my admin actions need review, I encourage you to follow the proper channels, but please refrain from making unfounded personal accusations and attacks. Thanks. Bedivere (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC) PS. You failed to notify me but I did read it on my watchlist.[reply]
The only thing that these files have in common is that they were uploaded by me. If you honestly felt that probate records were not "educational" you would have nominated the entire category. This all started because I reversed a single edit that you had made, and now you are using your admin tools to get revenge and harass me. You have also migrated your campaign to Wikidata to harass me there. And even left a message to recruit others to harass me. --RAN (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the logistics of that deletion request were poor (smaller nominations of closely related files would be better), you have provided no evidence either the (months-ago) DR nor these deletions were retaliatory. RAN, this is far from the first time that concerns have been raised about whether some of your Commons files and Wikidata items are in scope. I can hardly imagine why a newspaper clipping of a probate notice would be in scope. I would focus your energies on things like reducing the number of blatant copyright violations you upload, and perhaps find somewhere else to host things related to your ancestors. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funeral notices in the United States are considered ineligible for copyright since they contain publicly available information, and are devoid of commentary that would meet the threshold of originality. The only thing these files have in common is that I uploaded them. --RAN (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Dear brother of...", "Eight adoring grandchildren"... "Beloved husband..." "Devoted father...". Sure, not creative at all. Bedivere (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See: this search for the phrase "devoted father" appearing in funeral notices, it is a stock phrase used since the 1800s. These stock phrases were part of the reason that they were declared ineligible for copyright. The funeral director fills out a form with these phrases preprinted. If two people filled out the form, the contents would be identical. --RAN (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved in at least a couple of DRs having to do with files uploaded by RAN. Along with a few deletion requests related to their personal genealogical on Wikidata. Plenty of people other then Bedivere have said what they are doing is out of scope on both projects. The only issue here is unwillingness to get the point and stop using Commons and/or Wikidata as a personal webhost. There's plenty of other websites out there for storing personal information about family members. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These files might have been deleted by a DR. But they do not fall under any valid reason for CSD, and it is an abuse of the speedy deletion process to single-handedly delete them like this even if they are files we might decide to delete by DR. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I have restored the files mentioned above. Usually historical documents are in scope, and the reason provided is clearly not valid. Anyway, these are not eligible for speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What community consensus? It was first CSD'd by an uninvolved editor, CSD objected by none other than Greghendrson2006, then I nominated for deletion, and a third uninvolved editor questioned RAN's interpretation of "file in use". It's not just a matter of tallying up !vote counts. The very presence of objection to retention being raised means there's no solid consensus. Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann I am sorry but I am not reverting my closure. My decision was based on the solid proposal by @Graywalls, and my opinion in general is that historical documents are in scope but they should also have a potential use in Wikimedia projects. I'm all for genealogy as long as it is thoroughly documented in prose in a Wikipedia article, but most of the people who are the subject of RAN's and Greg's uploads are not notable and their only use corresponds to the Wikidata items they have created themselves. I am an avid genealogist myself, but I know my limits and know that Wikimedia Commons is not only not my personal webhost but that most of my ancestors and relatives are not worthy a Wikimedia Commons category or page, let alone have their photos and documents uploaded. I do understand your point of preserving historical documents, but what's the point of preserving materials that most likely will never have any use on Wikimedia projects (excepting the Wikidata items the uploaders themselves created for their non-notable relatives). If I was trying to be retaliatory or vindictive (for which reason anyway) against RAN or other people I would not be trying so actively to make them understand that their use of Wikimedia Commons is disruptive and it is not just my opinion but that of many other people. Greg and RAN both have the same behavior so I am not surprised they support each other's position in that DR and that's why I decided upon the basis of the nomination, whose arguments were not refuted by the commenters. And finally, it is not a vote, the decision was taken on the strength of arguments. Bedivere (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere: That's bad decision, but worse, you shouldn't close the UDR when you deleted the file, and it is controversial. I am going to revert that. Yann (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to Yann, for UDR. Regards, Aafi (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The undeletion request was for the category, not the files though, but I don't mind having it restored. My point is already explained. Bedivere (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere, you're pretty much wrong here. The undeletion request was not for the category alone. Regards, Aafi (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UDR is now closed again. The reason why I undeleted the category fast was that the requestor had a valid reason to recreate it on their own, and it was easier to just restore it. I had to look at the other two separately. The ex libris was obviously in scope as a historical American example. The 1985 photograph of Boisot was definitely an edge case. If we were just looking at the photo, I could see why Bedivere deleted it. Putting it in context with the other media on Boisot though, I decided to undelete it as media that would be useful to local historians as Boisot did get press coverage in the society pages, and it compliments the other historical newspaper photograph we have of her. Abzeronow (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well done @Abzeronow. Thanks Bedivere (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds good but the evidence is that the image was in use at the time of deletion per the file history. Commons:Project scope: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose. ... It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope." --RAN (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You continue to deliberately ignore the facts. You created the item so that the file was "in scope" here. The Wikidata items are linked from Commons and so they are "in scope" there. I could go and create some Wikidata items for some completely irrelevant neighbor of mine, upload a couple of photos, link them here and there and then pretend they are in scope on Wikidata and Commons. If that is not actively disrupting the projects (Commons and Wikidata), I don't know what is. Out of respect, and expecting somebody else to take the mop, I haven't taken more severe action against you and several others who have acted and continue to pretend me and others as fools. Fortunately, just today, some deletions have taken place on Wikidata and I am sure you can't call the deleting admin a retaliatory or vindictive one. Bedivere (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. That's what we got on hand with extremely non notable people like run of the mill editor writing articles on their mom, dad, grandma, and grandpa, nephews, nieces, the houses they loved in, their pets, the businesses they started. Graywalls (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RAN accuses anyone who disagrees with them of harrasement or being retaliatory. I hardly have anything to do with him myself but apparently I'm harrassing him just because I voted to delete a Wikidata item for one of his family members. Go figure. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not accuse everyone of harassment There were over 280,000 active editors in August 2024, just one accusation of harassment here at Commons. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) where Bedivere nominated 423 of my uploads as revenge for reversing a single edit they had made. User:Andy Dingley wrote: "(targeted at any editor here) is the sort of action that raises very real concerns over the fitness of an admin". I think most people would agree that nominating 423 uploads after reversing a single edit would constitute harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 September 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]
    Go figure. Even on your Wikidata user page (where you have been blocked for creating items on non notable individuals, as you have done here without any sanction so far) you've called my actions harassment. Go figure. Bedivere (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bedivere: I don't really support RAN's accusations, but in view of your inappropriate closure of RAN's requests on UDR, I can understand why he was angry. Now I propose that you refrain from nominating RAN's files for deletion for some time, and then we can close this thread. Yann (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not nominate their files for deletion this time round. I deleted three of them as I thought they were out of scope. I was mistaken, apparently, and they were restored. The thread can be closed. Bedivere (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He also deleted multiple photos that I uploaded. My friend created them and released them, and I supplied how they were marked with the YouTube CC-BY Marking. They were still deleted. See here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by LordBirdWord LordBirdWord (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
George Micro has no rights to release these images under a CC-BY license on YouTube or anywhere. That is why other files were deleted before and that is why yours were speedily deleted too. Bedivere (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

People uploading multiple potentially copyrighted images

[edit]

The last section got me curious if any of the "permission needed" images I've been tagging have had people uploading multiple potentially copyrighted images, slowly, for a period of time. For emphasis and clarity, I'm not talking about people who upload one or two images without sending permission. I found two said people:

I dream of horses (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I warned them both. For Vanityorpride, that's enough, files are already tagged. Most of the files from Gregorcollins are probably not own works, and need checking, even if some might in the public domain for some reason. Yann (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry to keep responding but - unlike vanity pride and others who are ignorantly and perhaps maliciously uploading un-owned work - I am actually commissioned by copyright owners and just happen to have time to put them all up at once. it was my fault i didn't write the necessary wording when i put them up on commons and i should not have done them all at once, hence the red flags. But please don't lump me into all these people who are out to worsen wiki. i'm here to help Gregorcollins (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a misunderstanding. All those images i uploaded are not violations. I've already emailed the permissions at wiki commons to straighten it out. i'm here to make wiki better so uploading a non-copyrighted work would be nonsensical. i've gotten executor of wills and family who are owners of the work of all those photos to email them and straighten it out Gregorcollins (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you doing your job and flagging me - but again, misunderstanding. Reason I'm uploading multiple at once because I just happen to have some time to update the pages and upload relevant photos. Again, these are all 80 year old photos that the family owns and has approved me to put them up. Again, please check with wiki commons, I have had them email them to straighten it out. Thumbs up Gregorcollins (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gregorcollins: Hi, I repeat what I wrote to you on my talk page. OK, but you need to write better sources, authors, etc., and if you are not the author, we need evidence that the pictures are in the public domain. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gregorcollins: For example, who is the photographer of File:RandV.png? If it's you, could you please import the original image with EXIF data? If not, we need teh formal written permission from the copyright holder. Idem for File:MariaRandySupremeCourt.jpg and File:Ferryboat2.jpg (which was published on the Internet before being uploaded here). Yann (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i will find those. again, my library is not perfect and i will be more exacting with the copyrights. also, it's not clear because on wiki there is an option to choose if you don't know the author, that 'i got it off the internet' and there is a way to upload those with that option. i have had a couple that i uploaded under that category Gregorcollins (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing all your files, it is clear that you copied images from the Internet, and wrongly attributed authors to you. Do not do that again, or you will be blocked. Yann (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please note that there ARE INDEED images in my library that are rightfully attributed to me. I was a caregiver to many austrian figures and women who are like a treasure trove on wikipedia - it's one of the reasons why I feel lucky to be able to input productive info for future researtches - and so some of those pics i took myself with my own camera. but i agree there are likely some that aren't and i will NOT do that again so carelessly Gregorcollins (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gregorcollins: I strongly recommend that you
  1. go back through your uploads and make sure everything has correct attribution and date (fixing as needed)
  2. for all uploads that are not your own work, either link a source that shows that the licensing is correct, give a clear rationale as to why this is public domain (e.g. if it is clearly pre-1929 U.S. work then {{PD-US-expired}} should suffice), or start the COM:VRT process.
  3. don't upload more third-party files until you have completed those steps for all of your past uploads of third-party files.
By "strongly recommend" I mean you are skating on thin ice here, in terms of possibly being blocked if you keep doing uploads like this. Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A1Cafel and hostile behaviour towards Flickr original sources

[edit]

A1Cafel has often explained to us that normal social mores do not apply to them and that as they are unable to achieve them, they cannot be expected to comply with them. They're also a most persistent uploader of Flickr content, often duplicated or inappropriately licensed (but woe betide anyone else who makes a similar mistake, as A1Cafel's main activity here is to nominate other's content for deletion on the thinnest of grounds!)

Most recently we have this: User_talk:A1Cafel#Request A Flickr source requesting that A1Cafel slow down from uploading their content, so that they may do it themselves. A very reasonable request, and we should always be gracious towards the photographers who create the material we rely on. A1Cafel's reply was 'unhelpful', shall we say. I replied myself here, but they blanked it without comment (as is their perfect right).

Is it time to seek a topic ban on A1Cafel for uploading from Flickr? It's an endless stream of trouble, it's very little benefit; a 'bot could do it better and without the licensing mistakes. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A1Cafel has often explained to us that normal social mores do not apply to them and that as they are unable to achieve them, they cannot be expected to comply with them. I was involved in at least the last couple of ANU complaints having to do with A1Cafel's behavior and I don't remember them ever saying that. So do you have diffs of where they have said anything even remotely along those lines or are you just making up stuff? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, User:A1Cafel, if a Flickr user is interested in uploading their content here themself, you should certainly allow them to do so rather than preempt them. -Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is they don’t seem to care going by the discussion on A1Cafel’s talk page. Plus I have seen them upload duplicates of what another contributor was uploading and even uploading photographs containing FoP/copyrighted elements, same type of material they DR others for. Will try and get some diffs when I get home but the lack of archiving will make it time consuming. Bidgee (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but uploaded it after 12 hours they changed the license is not preempt them IMO. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly I didn't read through the whole conversation on A1Cafel's talk page but it sounds like the original photographer didn't intend to upload the images to Commons but then decided to when they found out A1Cafel was doing it. Then they changed the licenses on some of their photographs in the process. I wouldn't put it on A1Cafel if that's what happened. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that particular issue is about the fact that A1Cafel applied a rule about (alleged) copyright protection on an element in a photograph of my hand that I uploaded, while four minutes after that deletion nomination they decided to upload a range of pictures from that same series, among which was one photograph with an element that would have violated Commons rules. I then informed them about this double standards and them violating the same rule they applied to me. After that they decided to upload a version of my photograph with a blurred element in it just so it would fit within the Commons rules. Let's just put it bluntly. This is about hypocrisy. Somebody who is hunting down violations and does mass nominate photos for violations, while at the same times doesn't apply that rule to themselves. In this particular example, the blurred part is also part of the political message which the photo is about, effectively vandalizing and damaging the whole purpose of the photo.l, hence my appeal to have it deleted altogether. This is not about the permission change but about the fact that the image was firstly uploaded in violation with the rules (hence I was not planning to upload it, while allowing it to be used wherever it would fit in the rules, a CC2 license is not exclusive to Commons. And secondly, it's about altering the image to fit in the rules correcting the violating that the uploader in all their haste at first did not notice, and thereby effectively vandalizing the political message of the activist and therefore render the photo useless and pointless. Labrang (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your aware that the CC2 license allows for people to modify the image for any purpose right? I don't really see why that wouldn't include someone blurring part of the want to. You can complain its vandalism all day, but your the who released the image under a license that allows for it to be modified. And so what if A1Cafel blurred the file after uploading it? We do that all the time. At least they noticed the problem and fixed it. Which isn't the case with most of the image they nominate for deletion BTW. A lot of uploaders could really care less about following copyright and most of them don't fix offending images after the fact when its brought up to them. So I don't really see what the issue is here. Like only people who have a 100% perfect record can nominate images for deletion. Anyway I'd suggest changing the license on your images if your going to be that offended by someone modifying them. I'm not sure if CC2 can be retracted though. So.... --Adamant1 (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"At least they noticed the problem and fixed it." - in fact - I was the one pointing it out to them. They uploaded the photo minutes after they nominated a photo from the very same source and Flickr album for deletion for this very same [alleged] violation of rules. Under any normal circumstances we would use the "H" word or "double standards". I understand that is an unacceptable word here as it breaches "assume good faith", although, as a good faith user myself, it feels not like that. So what we have here is someone who systematically nominates files for deletion for (alleged) violations of rules and at the same time mass grabs photos and then in the rush of the moment to upload these photos "because they can" forgets the rules they just applied to others. I have seen others doing more or less the same. Is it a credit based system here? [seriously wonder that, not bad faith question - not every critical assessment is bad faith]. Labrang (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"You released this file under Creative Commons, so your fault when we mess with your work [Next time don't do that]" - This attitute from multiple people is very disrespectful towards the actual creators of the high quality content we want & need.
Obviously, the licence allows it. But basic collegiality, which is also expected on Commons dosen't. If a author wants to organize their collection on Commons themselfes, instead of everything being quickly dumped, and requests to do so, then this should be respected. (Those authors don't want something, they provide volunteer work) I don't see why that would even be up for discussion. If a uploader dosen't want their files overwritten, then this should be respected. ~TheImaCow (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify I don't have an issue with Labrang saying they don't want their photographs to be modified if they are uploaded to Commons. That's their prerogative. My problem is purely with them saying blurrying out part of the photograph is "vandalizing the political message of the activist and therefore render the photo useless and pointless." Since as you say basic collegiality is expected on Commons and photoraphers don't get a special pass from that just because their photographs are high quality or whatever. 100% a photographer can ask someone not to overwrite one of their photographs but they should do it without baselessly screaming vandalism at the drop of a hat. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"disrupting" the message of the subject. I am willing to apologize for too casually using the word "vandalizing", but let's be frank here. In this particular example the said user only did that to bend the photo to fit in the rules, regardless whether it would actually remain valuable. Again, there's no harm in deleting a photo if it doesn't fit in the rules. Labrang (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support indefinite block – they were blocked indefinitely for similar discourse of disruptive behavior a while back, but this discussion gives me little hope they have changed. I'm afraid to say that this is the only course of solution, except that a potential unblock request in the future should also be voted on by the community. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The last time this account was blocked (indefinitely, by the way), I thought they would wait some time before requesting their return to the project, something like 6 months to a year. But they came back a month later... At the time, Mdaniels5757 had pinged me to give my opinion on A1Cafel's return, but I chose to remain silent due to my conflicts with the user. Well, whatever is decided here, I believe that if the block is not permanent, we will eventually face the same problems as before. It's a shame... I was thinking of suggesting that the user request an unblock on the English Wikipedia – I would support that – to "clean" their global history. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that the users behaviour can be seen as rude, and I'd say it's hardly acceptable to disregard the photographers request to upload images themselves, so the initial statement here is reasonable. On the other hand, there are DW issues with the photographers' uploads, and their replies to A1Cafel are no less rude, besides they are wrong. I'd suggest A1Cafel should respect request for not uploading images and leave more time for photographers to upload themselves, and if A1Cafel agrees, this issue is resolved without anything further. --Krd 06:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, and I will refrain from uploading files from Labrang's Flickr stream (Jelger Groeneveld). --A1Cafel (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, and also the user neglected to create or transclude Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erdogan and MBZ.jpg.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

user:Yurechkonazarii

[edit]

User is on a censorship crusade, nominating things that aren’t even pornographic like File:Gay Sex - Jong & Out.webm, an educational video where gay men discuss sex. Dronebogus (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week (for a start). I also blocked 186.173.72.252, probably the same user. Yann (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this user was previously Special:Contributions/188.92.251.201. Yann (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirleybellmore

[edit]

Shirleybellmore have reuploaded two of Shirleynude's previously deleted images. Based on that and the similar usernames sockpuppetry is very likely. Jonteemil (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Shirleynude is blocked, Shirleybellmore is warned. Yann (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Should be the other way around I think. I wrote them in the wrong order in my original post, sorry for that.Jonteemil (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done OK, so I also blocked Shirleybellmore indef. These are also not selfies, so we would need the photographer(s)' permission. NOT HERE anyway. Yann (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marianooss

[edit]

Reuploads deleted copyvios by accounts PauRep and A3f8 which both are socks of the same master so one would assume Marianooss also is a sock. Jonteemil (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files for details. Jonteemil (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I blocked Marianooss and another sockpuppet and mass deleted uploads. Taivo (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:NuManDavid

[edit]

At this DR user insulted me after I defended them and told another user to “take [their] opinion for a long walk off a short dock” (or basically, “take your opinion and jump off a cliff”) This also isn’t the first time they’ve been here: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 113#Dronebogus name calling and bad faith comment. These two incidents display entitlement, hypocrisy and general rudeness— traits that are not compatible with a collaborative project. They should probably be sanctioned at this point. Dronebogus (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to act unilaterally here, so I'd like at least one other admin to way in, but I think a one-month block is in order for uncalled-for rudeness. - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: That seems appropriate to me. This user is wildly out of line. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dronebogus started the name calling and bad faith months ago. Now they stuck their nose in my business again where it didn't belong. I don't think telling them that I didn't need them to defend me and referring to them as a pilgarlic (a man looked upon with humorous contempt or mock pity) is fitting. Again Dronebogus chose me as an enemy and chose to get involved where they had not business. NuManDavid (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You accuse me of name calling, and yet call me names. That is hypocrisy. You act like you have a right to post low-quality porn (which I did not call the uploads in the current DR) and get mad when people nominate it for deletion. That is entitlement. And I don’t need to explain why me defending you against unfair attacks, only to be attacked and characterized as an “enemy”, is not only rude but ungrateful. You need to understand that your simple presence here, let alone your ability to upload and contribute, is a privilege, which can be revoked at any time. Dronebogus (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support One month block per Jmabel for the pilgarlic comment, which is rather insulting (even if NuManDavid thinks it's accurate). Telling users to go walk of a short dock or jump of a cliff isn't great either. Comments like that could be taken as insinuating that the person should commit suicide. Although I don't think that's how NuManDavid meant them, but their still uncivil regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done Blocked for a month Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I closed the DR and deleted the file in question. Taivo (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the block, and notice that this user also gratuitously insulted me, but User:Taivo, was the nominated file in fact stolen from another site? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful. I think the request should be undone. Dronebogus (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it per COM:PRP. Small size (only 231×363 pixels), no data. Copyvio is likely. Taivo (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but per COM:DR, small size and lack of EXIF is not a deletion reason per se and only supporting evidence for copyvio, at most, so I appreciate your explanation but tend to disagree with it per policy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:WeatherFollower

[edit]

WeatherFollower (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is uploading satellite images from NASA Worldview, which is GFDL, but always claims them as his own work. Me and other users corrected that on many images and I tried to explain that he must put the real source and proper copyright for his uploads but he continues. Could an administrator remind him the right procedure?

Pierre cb (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1. commons must overcome the mess of senseless claiming and lack of sources in general. Uploaders need to be addressed early. --Itu (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User1648

[edit]

Uploads blatant copyvios after having been given {{End of copyvios}}. Jonteemil (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Blocked for 1 week. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upload file for promotional use

[edit]

Please delete all these files. User uploads them for just promotional use[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not obvious to me that these are unacceptably promotional, and the speedy deletion tag on File:رضا قنبری.jpg, at least, makes little sense. It is nominated as a copyvio, and the supposed evidence is "this file uploads for just promotional use". Being possibly promotional does not constitute a copyvio. Unless there is actual evidence of a copyvio, these should go through a normal DR, not a speedy deletion process. And there is certainly nothing here that requires special administrative attention beyond normal deletion processes. - Jmabel ! talk 06:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done per Jmabel. They do not look promotional. Copyright violation is likely. Regular DR should be the best solution. Taivo (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 39#User:Khiao do

[edit]

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

Buenas necesito que bloqué o que detiene a ese Usuario Khiao do por violación de derechos de autor, ese usuario público logos pero con "own work" (Google translator:Hello admins i need block or stop that User Khiao do for copyright violation, that user has public logos but with "own work".). AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can someone follow this up? As shown in the link, I asked 7 Sept if someone would do so, but no one did. I'm out the door in 10 minutes, so not doing it myself now. - Jmabel ! talk 05:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Yann,@Taivo AbchyZa22 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I deleted the most obvious copyright violations, and warned this user. For the rest, someone more knowledgeable about the threshold of originality in the country of origin should have a look. Yann (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fox de Quintal

[edit]

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

Hello,

I would prefer not to have to bring this case to the attention of the administrators, but the harassment has exceeded the bounds of this project and has now extended to two others, which compels me to respectfully request some form of sanction against the account in question.

Allow me to provide some context regarding the situation: at 1:23 AM, the user Fox de Quintal made a request, in an inappropriate section, for a statute that would enable them to upload AI-generated music to Commons. Over three hours later, at 4:45 AM, which I noticed through my Watchlist, I reverted the edit and provided a detailed explanation in the edit summary as to why I had done so. I was promptly reverted by Fox de Quintal, who claimed that I was harassing them (as if Commons were obliged to yield to their personal whims). After being reverted by the administrator Aafi, they reverted them as well, in a clear violation of NOTHERE.

As if these authoritarian actions were not enough, the user then went to both the English and Portuguese Wikipedias to complain about alleged persecution by me. On the English Wikipedia, they were admonished by the administrator Cullen328, who sided with me regarding the supposed evidence of harassment (an inappropriate page that was sent for deletion). On the Portuguese Wikipedia, their complaint has so far been ignored.

Thus, I respectfully request, as previously stated, that some form of sanction be imposed on the account in question. Fox de Quintal is not a productive member of this community (just look at their uploads: a single image of extremely poor quality and outside the scope, which remains only because it is currently in use) and seems not to understand the objectives of Wikimedia Commons (their user talk page reveals numerous improper uploads).

Thank you,

RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Yann and Abzeronow, who have both recently interacted with de Quintal. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RodRabelo7: I will answer you on the WP en. Fox de Quintal (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RodRabelo7: in summary of what's on WP en, you ALWAYS revert my edits without explanation, see WP en, see WP pt. Fox de Quintal (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made over 7,000 edits on the Portuguese Wikipedia and have been registered since 2024! Fox de Quintal (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid bludgeoning the process. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RodRabelo7: Fallacy! I am defending myself, I've already added links to your reverts on the English Wikipedia, and I will search to see if there are more! You like to show up out of nowhere and then revert without any explanation! I already have editing experience on Wikipedia, I've been on Wikipedia for years! I've made over 7,000 edits on the Portuguese Wikipedia. And stop reverting me, especially without providing an explanation! You only haven’t reverted me more because I'm usually on the Portuguese Wikipedia, and on that wiki, you are blocked! (Thank God!) Fox de Quintal (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RodRabelo7: I suggested on the English Wikipedia that there should be an interaction ban! Reason? You ONLY revert WITHOUT explaining! You NEVER explained the reasons! Fox de Quintal (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Only"? "Never"? Exempli gratia: here and here. In regards to the first reversion, English Wikipedia administrator ToBeFree admonished you (so I was correct, to say the least); in regards to the second one, Aafi and Abzeronow also reverted you, and I don't think these two administrators are trying to "harass" you. What's more now? I won't feed you anymore. Pinging DarwIn, Commons and Portuguese Wikipedia administrator, in case they have anything to add to this discussion. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DarwIn: he comments as if this were an isolated case, this is not an isolated case, NO! Several times he has reverted me WITHOUT explaining, and I have already explained to RodRabelo7 that it's because of this that I'm already tired of it! Fox de Quintal (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RodRabelo7: if you presented yourself as a helpful person, I would be thanking you, but instead, you come across as someone who wants trouble, all of this is happening because of you. Stop reverting my edits WITHOUT explaining. This is annoying! Fox de Quintal (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not because of me, otherwise you wouldn't have been reverted by two administrators, Aafi and Abzeronow, as I have mentioned before. You tried to edit war here, decided to harass me in three different projects (honestly, what's the next?) and now pretends to be harassed by me, ignoring the fact that I haven't had any interaction with you for the past months. Please stop trying to pass as the victim. This is my last comment on this section before someone else appears. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The user made a request for them to be permitted to upload an MP3 file. You say you "provided a detailed explanation in the edit summary as to why I had done so", whereas in fact you wrote "wrong section" and didn't point them to the right section. It sounds to me like you made a quick, unhelpful revert on someone you've been in conflict with, and when the predictable problems occurred, you're trying to act blameless. (Seriously, "wrong section", even "Undo revision 925603517 by Fox de Quintal (talk) wrong section", is shorter than "provided a detailed explanation in the edit summary as to why I had done so".)--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree that detailed description may not be the best description of this specific edit summary, I at least commented on it, countering de Quintal's argument. However, your comment seems to ignore the harassing behavior initiated by Fox de Quintal on the English Wikipedia, where he has been blocked for disruption, on the Portuguese Wikipedia, where he was reverted by a former administrator, here, where he was admonished by two administrators, and more recently on the Spanish Wikipedia, where he invited me to join a WhatsApp group. Absurd as that may seem, this group includes a long-term abuser to whom the Fox de Quintal account has tried to associate me for months, if not years. It's a persecutory behavior that I have never seen before around here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RodRabelo7: Let’s clear things up. I’ve been associating you with Pórokhov and Quintinense for about a year, not years! Ever since Pórokhov started attacking me, you showed up reverting my edits without any apparent reason. When you requested to be unblocked on Portuguese Wikipedia, you were associated with Quintinense, which only reinforced my suspicion that you are in contact with both, especially since Quintinense is a friend of Pórokhov.
Also, what’s the explanation for this strange behavior? Now here we are, at 2:19 AM (Brasília time), discussing this. Yes, I was hoping that the checkusers on Portuguese Wikipedia would discover some connection between you, Pórokhov, and Quintinense, or that sockpuppets were being used to vandalize the project. However, they found nothing. Coincidence?. To me, it was Pórokhov himself who asked you to do that. I’ll bring more details in my next message. Fox de Quintal (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RodRabelo7: In 2023, I returned to editing Wikipedia with a new account, Lalala2000. During this period, Ertrinken, a sockpuppet of Pórokhov, requested my block and treated me poorly. Pórokhov also created a fake account, IaIaIa2000, to pretend to be me and caused problems on Wikipedia. Additionally, another fake account named Alexandre Exalts appeared, suspected to have been created by Pórokhov. In this context, I also went through my first block discussion and question the coincidence of @RodRabelo7: appearing during the same period. Fox de Quintal (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment when a reasonable request is made in the wrong place, it is usually better to move it to the right place (or just comment telling the user what is the right place) than to delete it. - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

de Quintal's request simply wasn't reasonable. They wanted the autopatrol flag to upload a single audio file, a personal song called "The Samba of Fox de Quintal", generated by an artificial intelligence. RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was in the wrong place on the right page, move it to the right place. It's not unreasonable to want to upload an MP3 and thus request permissions needed to do that. Scope is complex; it's probably not appropriate to upload here, but that's at least subject to discussion. Instead of working with the user, you just reverted it, despite the fact that it wasn't spam and you knew that they didn't want to interact with you. I'm not praising their behavior, but you seemed to looking to cause problems.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RodRabelo7 that their request wasn't reasonable. The file they want to upload is out of scope. I warned Fox de Quintal about that at 18:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC). I further warned them now about edit-warring. Yann (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann, Jlwoodwa, ColinFine, and Hftf: Actually, it's not about an edit war, but rather that RodRabelo7's behavior irritates me because he reverts my edits and doesn't care. It seems like he does it intentionally to annoy me.
Please, I am blocked on English Wikipedia. I am already disgusted by his behavior. Can someone open an interaction ban on English Wikipedia for me? Or is it difficult to open one?
Comment:
It was already very well understood before that I don't want any interaction with RodRabelo7 (he's the one insisting on it).
Now it's made very clear here. Fox de Quintal (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the above comment, it is clear that Fox de Quintal didn't get the message, so I blocked them for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Funny Man 1999

[edit]

Funny Man 1999 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Most of the user's edits is abusing maintenance templates, specifically adding {{No permission}} into images that obviously already is a free license that doesn't need permission from the author. For example, adding {{No permission}} to an image that has YouTube CC BY-SA license. They even did it in a logo with very simple symbols. I'd appreciated if someone follow this user's edit and take appropriate action. Nvdtn19 (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, for a start. All reverted. Yann (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vô Danh 69

[edit]

Vô Danh 69 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Abusing maintenance templates, specifically adding {{No permission}} into images that obviously already is a free license that doesn't need permission from the author e.g. File:Trúc Anh – Mắt biếc BTS (1).png already reviewed by a license reviewer; File:PhuongMyChi1333.JPG photo taken at a public event by the uploader. I tried to revert some of them.  Băng Tỏa  15:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This could be is almost certainly another sock of User:Funny Man 1999 and User:Thich an che. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Unusual Deletion of Images of Vietnamese Artists. I'm going straight to an indef-block here, but this time I leave it to someone else to deal with any files that were deleted based on this person's dubious nominations. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Băng Tỏa: this probably should have been reported to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism. Please do note that for Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems you are supposed to notify the user in question on their talk page that there is a discussion of their conduct. But since this is straight-out vandalism, no problem with you not having done that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Funny Man 1999‎. Yann (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=926694129"