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
21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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
94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Note

  • Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Joshbaumgartner’s cat renames[edit]

At Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/09#Bad category-renaming you can see how the user was called out about renaming categories in a way that’s not only terminologically subpar but also politically prurient. One full month later, Category:Brown women's eyes still exists, populated with more than 300 elements, let alone grandchild cats and other such cousin cats. This user seems to have stopped editing two weeks ago (last edit: 2023.10.17, 22:09:53), but apparently and against his promises in the ducussion, little was done to repair the acknowledged damage in the two weeks before that. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • @Tuvalkin: We can't really sanction someone for failing to edit, so I don't really see any possible useful action to take other than addressing him.
    • @Joshbaumgartner: I would certainly hope that if/when you return to Commons in any substantial, you make it your first order of business to clean up these categories. If I remember correctly, at our last interaction over this, you not only said you would do so, but seemed somewhat offended that I raised even the slightest doubt that you would. - Jmabel ! talk 01:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meanwhile, crickets… And we keep unearthing further treasures in this vein, such as "Category:Gray girls' eyes". This is not just a bad case of Engrish (with a side serving of Ufology…): this is also a bad case of chutzpah, as Josh created this ridiculously inane catname by renaming/moving correctly named "Category:Girls with gray eyes"… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tuvalkin: as you presumably know, this is AN/U. Can you explain what sanction you are seeking against Josh for complete inactivity? I have already addressed a comment to him above. Are you suggesting that we block him for not editing? That seems a bit perverse: "You haven't edited, so we won't let you edit." Or do you have some other administrative action in mind? Yes, these are bad category names. - Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Josh should have his paycheque docked for not clocking in on time. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, so we just gotta move the cats ours self Trade (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andy Dingley , indeed, I hereby surrender my entire year's salary for wasting time on a Mexican beach for the last few weeks instead of diligently fixing categories. But have no fear, I am back on the clock so I can make the big bucks again! Josh (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, didn’t mean to be annoying. Yes, this is AN/U, for user problems — not just for sanctions against users. Admins should be aware that this human eye color cat renamings done by Josh is even wider than it would seem and that admin action is needed:
  • Right now to revert said renamings: They all have renamed redirects, so an admin action will make reinstating the status quo much faster and simpler.
  • And futurely, as a caveat against Josh’s often seemingly good ideas which might later on fall apart due to his limitations and stubbornness.
(It’s easy to feel sorry for him over this kind of pile-on, true, but then one comes accoss yet another absurd catname…) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, maybe you could ask Joshbaungartner to move (for instance) Brown adolescent girls' eyes to Category:Brown eyes of adolescent girls?
(How are those category names rendered in other languages, anyway?) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need to overcomplicate — just revert this. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would be happy to make such a move (to Category:Brown eyes of adolescent girls), if there were a consensus that was the naming format we want to go to. I'm not saying there isn't, but a lot of the calls seem to be 'return to the status quo' but the 'status quo' was already a mess of inconsistent category names and structure, so that doesn't make much sense as a real consensus. I certainly think there could be a great discussion about what these really should be named, but that's not what's happening here (nor is this the forum for such a discussion). For now, I have fixed most of the categories already, and there are still a few left for me to get to. If there is a future CfD that settles on some consistent naming or structure, I'll help implement that consensus at that time. Josh (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Josh, you know enough English to understand that phrases like "brown girls" are extremely problematic, or don’t you? The «mess of inconsistent category names» you boldly decided to add to was at least innocuous.
(I would challenge anyone to present one single of Josh’s cat renames in this subtree that constituted a net gain in terms of gammatical and terminological quality, or at least not a loss thereof, but his unwillingness to even acknowledge the main issue and immediately avoid an explosive situation pushes those concerns to a backseat and sadly justifies the choice of venue for this discussion.)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh wow, I just noticed that Josh is an English native speaker. I had in my mind that he was being mislead into stringing in a row all sorts of disparate adjective nouns (to the crass results quoted above) by his native other-Germanic language with its sublte differences when it comes to word derivation and concatenation. As it is, I don’t know what to think… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repeated insults and bludgeoning by User:Friniate[edit]

I recently nominated some images related to Italy for deletion, which User:Friniate decided to use as a platform to repeatedly insult me, lie about what I was saying, bludgeon the conversations, and otherwise derail them an unconstructive manner.

Just a few examples of the many insults

There's also more then a few examples of them repeatedly bludgeoning discussions, even after I asked them multiple times to drop. The conversation on the Village Pump being one example, but there are plenty more. As well as more examples of insults and patently false comments.

Adamant1 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment Your third link is broken. Yann (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. It should be fixed now. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following on your part (User:Adamant1) were not the best either:
and possibly more but I haven't the patience to keep looking.
So, if you really want, I can give you both a topic ban and/or an interaction ban, but I don't see much else I can appropriately do here. I'd rather not do either. I'd rather you both try to focus on content, keep the personal issues out of the matter, and (I know this is probably too much to hope for) each make a clear statement of your case and let the other make a clear statement of their case, and after that confine yourself to good-faith questions about what the other has said/meant, rather than (1) insult each other, (2) impute motivations, and (3) both keep trying to have the last word, while often repeating yourself. - Jmabel ! talk 19:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was going to provide a thorough answer with links and all, but I'm willing to let it down in order not to escalate further. I object an interaction ban since Adamant would clearly profit from it, not allowing me to comment on the multiple DRs that he is opening. Friniate (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I said those things multiple days into him lying, insulting me, and derailing my DRs. In no way is me saying he was repeatedly derail the discussion, which was exactly what he was doing, comparable to him repeatedly lying about and insulting me for multiple weeks. You can read look at this back and forth from 11 September. I wasn't even the one who opened it. Nor had I interacted with Friniate or opened any DRs related to Italy at that point as far as I'm aware and he started calling me a troll right out of the gate. But sure, it's totally equal and I should be topic banned because I said he was hell bent on debating strawman 2 months into him bullying me. Whatever. The fact is that Friniate's been coming after me for months now and I'm not the one instigating things here. It's totally ridiculous to act like our behavior is at all equal or that I should be sanctioned just because I got a little defense months into it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I think the behaviour of Adamant1 falls under the Commons:Disruptive editing guideline, more precisely the point 5 of the examples section: Creating multiple deletion requests. He is clearly abusing this privilege, and he's not new to this. He has already been blocked in Commons two times (first and second), both times regarding discussions about requests of deletions. And he was blocked precisely for trolling. I see complaints about his behaviour appear regularly and quite often on this noticeboard (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). He started since many weeks to target pictures from WLM Italy, causing a lot of damage to the website contents, damage that spread to sister projects. He do not have any knowledge of Italian law, and of Italian language either, but claims tha Wikimedia Italia, an official Chapter, contributed to upload tens of thousands of images in copyright infringement. Now I do not want to discuss the topic here, but if you think a Wikimedia Chapter is doing this massive law violation, the right way to address it is through general discussion, not opening deletion request about thousands of single pictures. Pictures which already had been authorized by copyright owners through WLM, with dozen of people working on those permissions. I can understand people losing their temper reacting to this massively disruption behaviour and trolling way of discussing. Relevant to this report is also the fact that Adamant1 was repeatedly blocked also on English Wikipedia, for disruptive editing and, how ironic: "badgering and bludgeoning". And no surprise, again, concerning deletion requests. Actually Adamant1 is indefinitely topic banned from all deletion discussions on English Wikipedia. This record is quite impressive, and as an administration myself on another Wikimedia project, I have to say I'm quite surprised such a user is left to continue freely with this behaviour. I think we need to protect Commons file from him, so a block or a topic ban it could be appropriate in my opinion. --Phyrexian ɸ 12:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment, agree with Phyrexian above, this guy is here just to play at “Deletion discussion: The Game”. Once banned from deletion discussions on en.wikipedia he basically semi-retired from there and moved to play the same game here. He's currently doing a mass-deletion after another, nominating whole categories without checking the items in them (otherwise I should assume he considers pics like File:Bangkok Panorama (2287990977).jpg not in scope, which would be even worse), on the grounds that "I'm just never sure where the line is and some clearly aren't. So I thought it would be easier to nominate them as a batch". And, based on the links above, there is not a single case where he accepts a "keep" vote without bludgeoning the discussion. It's the same pattern which led to his en.wikipedia ban, and, while I wish everyone the best, I suspect at some point it will ends the same way. --Cavarrone (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment totally agree with Phyrexian above. I also noticed many mass deletions, IHMO very distruptive. Sometimes not even not informing the author, for example in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sant'Anna (Champoluc) MrKeefeJohn (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MrKeefeJohn: Admittedly I don't recall the situation with that particular DR, but I usually use VFC when I nominate multiple images for deletion and it should inform the uploader about the request. It's not really my issue if the tool fails to do that once in a while though. Sometimes if I nominate an image for deletion using the "Nominate for deletion" link on the side panel, it will either not add the deletion request template to the file or post it twice. So this clearly isn't an exact science that works 100% perfectly all of the time. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: I think that you are not doing a good job for Commons. That's my opinion, I can be wrong.MrKeefeJohn (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MrKeefeJohn: That's fine. I just wanted you to know that the specific complaint about me not informing the author about a deletion request was probably due to an error on VFCs side. I could really care less about your opinion outside of that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I agree with Phyrexian as well. This is a classic case of over-zealousness, apparently seldom compensated by commons-ense. Adamant, at some point, even came to affirm that the long-term solution to this would be for the people involved to follow the guidelines, not have such un-realistic expectations about what the purposes of Commons is, and to police themselves when it comes to dealing with copyright violations. Instead of treating this like a glorified pirating website... I infer from this statement that his DRs (from his viewpoint) are always correct (while they're controversial, to say the least) and the poor fellows that uploaded their files are to blame. What to think then of the instances of mass DRs opened by Adamant ended with a Keep or bogged down in theological debates, in which he, for instance, mistakes museums for private houses? Looking at this DR one doesn't know wether to laugh or cry. His over-zealousness is dangerous. He's not a lawyer, he doesn't understand Italian, he messes with lots of assumptions and throws his uncertainty as tar over other people's voluntary work. Here he shows how over-zealousness doesn't match with accuracy. DRs are a service among others, not a mission to destroy over limited knowledge of foreign laws. One doesn't *request* deletion on the basis of assumptions. Voluntary work is important as much as supposed copyright. --pequod ..Ħƕ 00:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Nordic9[edit]

Looks to be a Category:Sockpuppets of Oatsandcream, uploading blatant Beatles copyvios and possible hoax images of lost 1920s films again, same kind of material as earlier sock Sir Robert PerPaper (talk · contribs). SPI also opened on enwiki at en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oatsandcream. Belbury (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User has since been blocked on enwiki. Belbury (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Blocked as a precaution Gbawden (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User Gaalkhalifah[edit]

Gaalkhalifah (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  repeats uploading images of a Saudi scientific from copyrighted site. By the user name, it seems that it is self promotion. Pierre cb (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Warned per COM:BP Gbawden (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Marchio Ephesi[edit]

Marchio Ephesi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been creating a bunch of dubious articles on en.wiki (see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marquess of Ephesus and en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign House of Nicaea) and has uploaded a bunch of files here to use on en.wiki. The problem is that I doubt they're free images. Take for instance File:Coat of arms of the Count of Prousa.jpg (a typical example). Its author is listed as "Italian Heraldic Council" or, in Italian, "Consiglio Araldico Italiano" and there's no indication that the council produces and releases free images. In fact the description reads "Coat of arms of the Count of Prousa The blazon is described in a private document, deposited at the Italian Heraldic Council and protected by the applicable trademark laws." which is a pretty strong indication that the image and many uploaded by the same user are not free. Pichpich (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done I warned this user, deleted 3 copyvios, and tagged most files for missing permission. Yann (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Pichpich and @Yann. I actually have permission, but how can I provide proof of that? Sorry for being such a newbie Marchio Ephesi (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marchio Ephesi: Please have the person who gave you permission send it directly via VRT with a carbon copy to you. Is that "oscarannunziata"?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's the Italian Heraldic Council, I'll file an inquiry immediately and report back to you. Thanks! @Jeff G.@Yann Marchio Ephesi (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see the answer on your talk page. Yann (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should just see how the VRT goes here. It looks like this is someone well-intentioned, new to Commons, and confused. They could probably use some help in doing things correctly, but nothing more. - Jmabel ! talk 05:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marchio Ephesi: if it is all right with you, it's probably best that you refrain from doing more uploads until we can sort this out. And don't worry about what has already been deleted: if the correspondence via VRT pans out, they will be restored. - Jmabel ! talk 05:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I much appreciate @Jmabel Marchio Ephesi (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Gagherman[edit]

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

Some of this user's uploads and edit summaries are wildly inappropriate, particularly Revision #820802874. (They also seem to be in some sort of strange cycle of uploading inappropriate images, then immediately nominating them for deletion.)

Omphalographer (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Username appears to translate to "gag her, man!"   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Indeffed. I'm not sure what they're actually up to, but they're clearly not here to contribute to Commons. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Олег Черкасский[edit]

Олег Черкасский (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) makes confession after long history of copyright violations (both discovered and not yet): If I designated some other people’s photos as my own, it was because of laziness, it would be faster. I repeat once again: I absolutely do not care about US laws. Komarof (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done. User has not uploaded anything since 8th of July. And I believe, that most of his uploads are his own work. Please nominate the rest for deletion, that's enough. Taivo (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Joluxx1[edit]

Joluxx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Continued uploading of copyright violations and false license attributes (claims of own works, no proof of Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International licenses) since previous block in August 2023. PizzaKing13 (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. One month block (second block). Taivo (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Kylie Miley[edit]

Uploads non-free content Kelly The Angel (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ː @Kelly The Angel Please note that if you bring someone to COMːAN you are required to alert them on their talk page
ː✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks Gbawden (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Diogo Barcelos[edit]

Hello Team, I would like to highlight the behaviour of Diogo Barcelos. He is uploading obvious copyvio, but is continuing as of its upload, as of its yesterday upload : File:Capa Raimundos Acústico.jpg. Would it be possible to put a stop, please? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Final warning sent, all files deleted. @CoffeeEngineer: You have to inform the user you report here. Yann (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Danielg532[edit]

Hi, User:Danielg532 is uploading image files to en:wp from where they are being cross-loaded here. Although warned previously for copyright issues, his last five uploads are all self-attributed but were actually the work of someone else. Several (most?) of these images were also originally posted to the internet with non-compatible image licenses. Not sure if this is best pursued here, CCI, or on en:wp, but suspect a deeper look at their past contributions is warranted. See:

Loopy30 (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever the sources say pobably none of these images are original enough to be copyrightable and as you point out one of them already freely licensed. Although the user shouldn't be attributing the images to themselves, but that's a different issue that at least IMO doesn't warrant the complaint. People will pretty routinely attribute themselves as the author of an image that they uploaded on here. Which is probably more due to confusion about exactly the "author" field is for to begin with then intentional nefariousness on their part. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Four of these examples are unambiguous copyright violations and the fifth example contravened the sharing conditions of the Creative Commons license (failure to give attribution). Why should we consider that these images are not original enough to have been copyright-able by their original authors? Loopy30 (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources can say they are copyrighted, but the threshold of originality is a thing. What's original about these pictures? Like what makes this image different from any other one of sea slug out there and what exactly makes it "complex enough to receive copyright protection"? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: I disagree. I believe that in the U.S. those are probably eligible for copyright, unless they were taken in such an automated way (equivalent to a security camera) that no individual can take credit for them. - Jmabel ! talk 01:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Photographs of 3D objects are almost always considered original works by the photographer. There are some exceptions but none of those seem likely to apply here. Omphalographer (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hasn't there been several discussions on here about things like images of greek coins or other artifacts from museums and the like where the photorgraphs were determined to be PD because the object in the photograph was and it wasn't original enough on its own to retain a copyright? I don't see how this would be any different. Its not like the sea slug is copyrighted or the photographer even posed it in an unusual way or anything. So what exactly is copyrightable there? The black background? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1 All these cases are obvious copyvios according to our long time use and policies, including the COM:PRP. If you disagree, you may continue your argument at the copyright VP or the undeletion requests. Darwin Ahoy! 02:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm good. Thanks for the suggestion though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Persistent copyvio uploader. Final warning sent, all obvious copyvios deleted. There may be more undetected ones, though.-- Darwin Ahoy! 02:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DarwIn: Even if the other images are COPYIO, File:Cuvierinaatlantica.jpg was CC licensed to begin with. So you can undelete it and I'll just add the proper attribution? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1 That one is still not OK for Commons regardless, it's a copyvio too. Darwin Ahoy! 02:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yeah, I see now that it's licensed non-commercially. My bad. I wouldn't call that copyrighted, but still not OK for Commons regardless. Thanks anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A permissive license is not the absence of copyright. Omphalographer (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm aware. I was actually saying the exact same thing a few days ago in another conversation. I just misread the comment I was responding to. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Darwin, it is File:Diacria.jpg that had the shareable license, not File:Cuvierinaatlantica.jpg as Adamant suggests. The original file source location can be found in the deleted file (I had changed the file source info and authors name in the meta info earlier today). Loopy30 (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Loopy30 ✓ Done Darwin Ahoy! 02:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: "I wouldn't call that copyrighted": CC-BY-NC, like CC-BY-SA and CC-BY, is only relevant for images that are copyrighted. Just speaking for myself, I've probably got 50,000 CC-BY images here on Commons that I shot. Clearly, I still own copyright on those images. So I'm not sure what you are meaning to say here. - Jmabel ! talk 04:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: Honestly, me neither lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:SapthaRishi78[edit]

SapthaRishi78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Continously uploads copyvio after final warning. -- Doclys👨‍⚕️👩‍⚕️ 🩺 • 💉 10:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Knolagee[edit]

Knolagee (talk · contribs), spam only. Lemonaka (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now, nothing after warnings. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What Am I Supposed To Do In This Situation I Am New Wo Wiki & All Of This Tech Talk SonHow Can This Be Fixed Knolagee (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What Does Spam Only Mean Knolagee (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Masdrdallah Knolagee (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Knolagee: Wikimedia Commons is a media repository for educational resources, not a social media. We only accept documents (images, sounds, videos, etc.) useful as providing educational information. We don't accept advertising and promoting materials. Please read COM:SCOPE. Yann (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please define The Promotional Language As Stated Knolagee (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Knolagee: please don't come in here as a relatively new arrival telling the administrators what to do. If you really don't understand the difference between what you were doing and what the site is about, I suggest you look around the site a bit. - Jmabel ! talk 01:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:John Junnor VIP[edit]

Probably multiple reasons to block this account, but his threat against User:Taivo in the description of File:The Mains of Balhaldie - Location of the war of Balhaldie.jpg (a file that I just nominated for deletion) should be enough for an indef-block all on its own. - Jmabel ! talk 02:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=823500499"