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
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
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
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 (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.

sock user[edit]

டாக்டர் வா.செ.செல்வம் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has a sock தென்னை மருத்துவர் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and good to delete both users' uploads. Both are blocked in ta.wiki. I report for admin intervention. AntanO 14:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Master account warned, both files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
unblock my ip address and protect my account for future deletion. I need to publish this article தென்னை மருத்துவர் it's very important to know future generation in agriculture தென்னை மருத்துவர் (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Sure. @தென்னை மருத்துவர்: Since you don't understand, I also blocked your other account for one week. Please read COM:SCOPE. It will be longer next time. Yann (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RZuo[edit]

User RZuo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has appeared to have continually used their rollback rights on reverting edits that are not vandalism or clear mistakes by other users recently [1], violating the COM:RBK policy limiting the use of rollback to combating vandalism [...] own mistaken edits or the clearly mistaken edits of another user. It should only be used for clear-cut cases, and without any explanation or edit summary. Since the user has been repeatedly blocked for incivil behaviour across multiple sites, I am unwilling to engage in further arguments with the user, and thus directly reporting this case to ANU for third-party review. LuciferianThomas 02:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LuciferianThomas: "repeatedly" and a link to all of their contributions is basically saying "go work it out for yourself". Please link at least three examples of what you consider to be inappropriate rollbacks by RZuo. - Jmabel ! talk 04:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All reverts since mid January. None of those are reverting vandalism or clear mistakes. LuciferianThomas 05:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please provide diffs. Abzeronow (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And remember, not every revert is a rollback. The " vandalism or clear mistakes" applies to the rollback tool, not to all reversions. - Jmabel ! talk 20:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do note that the extra link I have provided has filtered their contribution with mw-rollback, which are definitely revert edits using the rollback tool. If you had even looked even one more second on the link I provided, you would have noticed that.
Diffs from the recent two weeks:
  • 842266448: Reverting Shizhao's notifications for another user on the other user's talk page without valid reason. Even if images are kept in deletion discussions, the notifications for deletion are still not "clearly vandalism", and as sent according to procedural requirements and thus not "clear mistakes".
  • 844337427: Reverting Jeff G.'s category move from a category requested for deletion by creator to a category with same function without reason. While they did notice their mistakes, it still shows their lack of thought before using the revert tool, reverting non-vandalism and non-mistake edits.
  • 845355575: Reverting my reasoned removal of the category move request, again without reasoning or further discussion. Again, non-vandalism and non-mistake edits.
From further down the history lane:
  • 762341849 (May 2023): Reverting Yrellag's removal of categories on a file, while on RZuo's next edit removing most categories that Yrellag removed again. Whilst RZuo did warn Yrellag's removal as vandalism, but if they basically repeat the edit that they reverted, then the reverted edit is clearly not just vandalism or a clear mistake.
The above show a clear pattern of failure to assume good faith, or to identify non-vandalism from vandalism. LuciferianThomas 02:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LuciferianThomas: I think you are reading way too much into this. It looks like RZuo is a too quick to use the rollback tool rather than revert by other means, but none of this looks to me like big deal.
@RZuo: I believe LuciferianThomas is correct on one thing here: you should not use the rollback tool except for vandalism & blatant errors. Otherwise, you should revert the same way someone would if they didn't have this too (and a decent edit summary is usually in order). Probably calls for being more careful.
[to all]: but it certainly doesn't call for an administrative sanction. - 06:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs)
Considering that the user has been partially blocked across multiple sites recently due to aggressive behaviour against other users (enwiki, zhwiki, yuewiki), there is no way that one can possibly believe that the user would even try to communicate about their actions. Per COM:RBK, Users misusing the rollback tool to revert constructive edits may have their rollback permission revoked. The same applies for its use for edit warring or content disputes. It is only reasonable to believe that they will not communicate about their use of their rollback rights, or even have a high probability in bringing their uncivilised behaviour on the other sites that blocked them to here on Commons if questioned upon. It is just impossible to assume good faith on a user who has already been known to cause trouble across sites. --LuciferianThomas 12:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elie Mulenda[edit]

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week. All files already nominated. Yann (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Jjsgood35[edit]

Jjsgood35 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  keeps uploading copyvio or unsourced photos even after being warned. All remaining photos should be checked by administrator. Pierre cb (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jjsgood35‎. Yann (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Person 18.0[edit]

@Person_18.0 keeps tagging a picture of a menorah with a star of David on it as a Zionist symbol. See latest here. This user has been blocked before for inappropriately applying this template, as well as similar ones about China and Russia. Just as they have edit-warred over marking every single image of the letter Z as a symbol of Russian aggression, they are marking every random picture of a Jewish star as a Zionist symbol. Zanahary (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More diffs: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] Zanahary (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploads by Bigguy637[edit]

I have some concerns regarding some uploads from a user, User:Bigguy637. I reached out to them last night with a message on their talk page, regarding their incorrect use of the 'own work' for author/source, but I'm unsure how to discuss and advise on the use of the correct content license; as they've also been using "self|cc-zero" (The Creative Commons 0, with that extra "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it..." box around it.), which wouldn't be correct as they're all safety symbols, from years old design standards and legal acts, that aren't their own work, per Commons:Own work.

I also have some concerns that some of their uploads are not-free works and prohibited on the Commons. I've nominated a batch for deletion here Commons:Deletion requests/Portal 2 Safety Signs that I'm very confident on, but someone who has a better understanding of copyright, threshold of originality, etc might need to take a look. The Navigators (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Thesazh[edit]

Thesazh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Upload non-free movie poster. メイド理世 (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. I warned the user. Some copyvios are already deleted and I'll delete them more. Taivo (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:NewEraEducationDelhi[edit]

NewEraEducationDelhi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Upload advertising file. メイド理世 (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked the user indefinitely, partly due to inappropriate username. Taivo (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: So many socks[edit]

I have requested Check user at meta and found many socks. A few of them already uploaded some images that were deleted and again uploaded here. Rest of the images are clear copyvio.

Group 1

SwamyAyya566 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , ஸ்டீவன் ஸ்கால் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , AryaPadaiKadanthaAurelius (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , DonParlo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , كريشنا الداعي (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Group 2

17289ha (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , Tamil career advise (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , சூர்யநாராயணன் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , 1gy9No (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , Edu-info-goodwriting (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , Btytatg (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

I hope admins can take proper action. AntanO 14:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AntanO: it is not clear exactly what action you are requesting. Deletion of all uploads by these accounts as copyvios, or something else? - Jmabel ! talk 00:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Usually, we have to tag for deletion. Is it possible to delete copyvios images that already deleted, and uploaded again by 17289ha (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . Also, screen capture images found at Btytatg (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . ஸ்டீவன் ஸ்கால் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and AryaPadaiKadanthaAurelius (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  also uploaded copyvios. In addition, is it possible to block these IDs due to copyvios and socks that found at Meta? AntanO 05:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every copyvivo in meta is deleted. I just learnt that these should be uploaded in wikipidea, as non-free images with appropriate tags, logo, etc. And that 2 svg images are not copyvivo as code is modified (more than 50%). Others can be deleted. Sorry

17289ha (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still don't understand exactly what is being requested here. If some other admin understands, would you please say so here and take this on? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 20:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: This appears to be a request for blocks and upload reviews here on Commons. The checkuser page on meta implicated locked account Tyih, so I created m:srg#Global lock for socks of Tyih.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Olivenza[edit]

For many years (almost a decade, you can check here) the Tm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) user has monopolized the category of the Spanish municipality of Olivenza, dominating what appears and what does not appear. He has turned it into a personal whim, where no one else can edit differently.

Up to five users (@Jl FilpoC: , @Discasto: , @Lopezsuarez: , @J.M.Domingo: and myself) have opposed their criteria in the last years, and Tm simply incurs massive rollbacks. Given that we are facing a with a situation that has been repeated for years, which is sabotage, I ask that an administrator intervene and put an end to this anomaly. CFA1877 (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you bring up an issue to ANU, you are supposed to notify the user of this. I took the liberty of doing so since you did not. As Tm has said, Olivenza is disputed territory that is claimed by both Portugal and Spain, and de facto part of Spain. Having that noted in the category page is useful for historical context. Abzeronow (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You forget to mention that one user reverted edits like your in 2007, another user and administratir added in 2008 one of the categories that you are trying to surpress, and that the same administrator protected the page in 2009 for similar edits (that repeated itself in 2010, and reverted by 3 other users besides me). That in 2013 another reversion by an administrator of edits similar to yours
That in 2015 the present categories were added by another user and there have been there since then.
You also forget to mention that almost all (or all?) the users you say are deleted these categories are spanish and that there are zero portugueses that readded those categories besides me.
You also forget to mention that you are attempting to delete any mention of it territorial dispute
You also know perfectly well that this was previously discussed here in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_103#Tm_and_his_edits_concerning_files_related_to_Olivenza and there was no objections by any administrator to them. also this edits, as present, were not added by me but other user in 2015 and have been here since then. Tm (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: , the user Tm considers the category as their private property, regardless of the historical issue, it is a much worse thing. Only what he likes to appear...appears. Constantly revert any changes made by other users. That's not normal. CFA1877 (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you provide diffs where Tm says he owns the category? If changes by other users amount to trying to revert any mention of a territorial dispute, I can see why Tm would so. Abzeronow (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: For example, Tm introduces redundant categories. It insists on introducing the category [[Category:Disputed territories]], when at the same time there are the categories [[Category:Territorial disputes of Spain]] and [[Category:Territorial disputes of Portugal]]...which are already part of [[Category:Disputed territories]]. Seriously? Where is the problem in not being redundant?
Then, there is an entry in the category that comes from the time when Wikidata did not exist. I consider that it is not necessary now, since Wikidata exists. I have observed that in many categories these types of entries have been eliminated for this reason that I point out. But if he doesn't agree, I'm willing to listen to his arguments. However. Tm should argue it and not just revert everything massively, as he has done for a decade with everything. CFA1877 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You claim that i "insists on introducing the category Category:Disputed territories, when at the same time there are the categories Category:Territorial disputes of Spain and Category:Territorial disputes of Portugal. Curious then that that i removed it, after you explained it for the first time as i said after you decided to talk i said that i removed it "as grandparent of Territorial disputes of Portugal and Territorial disputes of Spain". Tm (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CFA1877: If you keep doing reverts like https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AOlivenza&diff=847599274&oldid=847599184, I will have to fully protect the category page until this comes to a resolution. Abzeronow (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abzeronow: Explain that to Tm, who cannot wait for the end of this discussion and feels the need to make adhoc changes. I am willing to give in, but it would be nice if Tm facilitated the environment. CFA1877 (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I did check the page history, and the message wasn't there in 2022 with what appears to be the last stable version. So that revert does appear to be fine. Although Former Munipalities of Portugal and Alentejo categories should be put back in since those were essentially there in 2022. @Tm: Abzeronow (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can answer for that. There no word of me claiming i own this category (or any other). i was falsely accused by another user of being a portuguese irredentist ("cannot use Commons as a platform to promote or spread your political views (irredentism or any other kind).", just because i said to this same user (not CFA1877) that "Portugal and Spain claim this territory as being theirs De Jure and no ammounts of whining will change that" and "There is a territorial dispute between Portugal and Spain, so those categories are proper. Portugal and Spain have its reasons to claim said territory so "let's get stuck to reality, the not fantasy" that you pretend that this dispute does not exist." Tm (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Olivenza&diff=prev&oldid=847582579 You also forgot (or did not see as this was made about 30 minutes ago) that you also blyndly reverted my changed the Category:Municipalities in Portugal and added Category:Former mmnicipalities in Portugal as i explained that "as the facto there is no portuguese municipality power since 1801, albeit Portugal still claim this municipality as being protuguese De Jure".
Also, in case you do not know, the fact is that there is a low key but activeterritorial dispute, as is it not a coincidence that there are no boundary stones between boundary stones 802 and 899, south of the de facto border south of Badajoz and west of Olivença. And these are facts, not fantasies, as the portuguese Army Geospatial Information Center is one of the organizations of the portuguese state responsible to mark and keep the border marker stones. Tm (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You also said in your talkpage that "Not to mention the (unrealistic) political view you have on this subject. Olivença ceased to be Portuguese territory more than two centuries ago, but you insist on maintaining the status of a Portuguese municipality and making it part of Alentejo." ("Olivença deixou de ser território português há mais de dois séculos, mas faz questão de manter o estatuto de município portugués e de fazerlo parte do Alentejo."). But you are completly wrong, when the simple lack of border markings west of Olivença just proves that there is an territorial dispute about the De Jure status of Olivença. Tm (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tm, I think it's a miracle. A decade of lack of dialogue with other users...have been magically transformed into a flow of words. For that reason alone I think it's worth it. But now, tell me: are you going to change the way you act with other users in this category? Are you going to stop considering yourself the guardian-owner of the category? Are you going to stop monopolizing the category? I would appreciate a cordial response. Thanks in advance. CFA1877 (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just last year this was discussed in my and other users talkpages and in here (as linked above), so claiming that i had "decade of lack of dialogue with other users" is clearly wrong. And since 2007 several other users and administrators have reverted deletions like yours, so that fact alone proves who is what. Tm (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me remind you: you have had no dialogue. You have only reminded other users that you are in possession of the absolute truth. In a rather unpleasant way, too. If you had avoided that procedure, we probably wouldn't be here now. CFA1877 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, Tm, it sounds like you're willing to make changes. It seems that we will be able to reach a consensus. Would you mind explaining why there are "controversial" subcategories that you maintain? I would like to know, with a proper explanation. Also on the entrance. CFA1877 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My explanations are all above, in my talkpage (as linked here), and in the previous discussions in here (as linked above). It were edits like yours that were reverted several other users since and was you that tried to revert edits that were in this category since 2015. Tm (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You claim that a text is redundant but should also know who added the first text about this dispute (hint, it was not me but J.M.Domingo) Tm (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, my mistake but it was also not J.M.Domingo who added the first text, but Lopezsuarez. Sorry for the confusion as both are users you called above. Tm (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, you have no problem with that. In that case, and with the changes you have already made, I think the issue can be closed. CFA1877 (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For your information. I moved that text (a sightly compacted version) to the Wikidata item about olivença. Saludos. Tm (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In good faith i informed you that i moved the deleted text to Wikidata, as it was a npov description, as you claimed it was redundant, as you said above "Then, there is an entry in the category that comes from the time when Wikidata did not exist. I consider that it is not necessary now, since Wikidata exists".
But now, in what i can only describe as an act of bad faith by your part, you started reverting my moves and, not happy in doing it, you are now accusing me of a political agenda as you said that "Wikidata is not a platform for political purposes". Tm (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a wikidata issue, not a wikimedia commons issue. But before making spurious accusations, I would like to point out that you have used this issue from Commons to break a consensus that you reached with @Lopezsuarez: in Wikidata a few years ago. Stop causing troubles everywhere you can. CFA1877 (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You say that i have "break a consensus that you reached with @Lopezsuarez: in Wikidata a few years ago", yet i, as far as i can see, i never arrived at a consensus with him in anything in wikidata, as i can only find two interactions with Lopezsuarez
1 - This of an related subject but not about the core of this discussion in here
2 - And the fact that i merely reverted his deletion of any reference to the territorial dispute, as not not even the spanish official flag and the coat of arms he would stop from vandalizing by removing them) Tm (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Minorax: since this dispute is also on Wikidata now. Abzeronow (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand now, reading this discussion on your wikidata usertalkpage that you have the habit of using the accusation of "political purposes" on others.
Or are you going to deny that you accused another wikidata user added that the asturian (a regional language in spain) description of "categoría de Wikimedia" to around 500 similar items and you reverted those addictions by making the claim that those addicttions were made for "political purposes"? But you reverting all of them is not an "political purposes" as you justify that with "Empty editions, Wikidata is not a platform for political purposes. Return to the previous stable version"? Understood in that you stand. Tm (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tm, you have no shame. You are spuriously mixing matters unrelated to this cause, just to spread the filth. I'm very kind to the immoral attitude you have. But no matter how much crap you bounce around, it doesn't take away the problems you've had with other users for years related to this issue. CFA1877 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You accused me of having a political agenda and so it is important to mention that you tend make this kind of claims (like you did just yesterday as i pointed in the asturian situation. Tm (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now, after i informed him, as i should, of W:Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Report_concerning_user:CFA1877_2 opened by me, he reverted my text with accusations of "Trolling, Wiki-hounding". Tm (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I totally agree with the problem that CFA1877 exposes. The user Tm tries to give an unreal image of Olivenza's situation. It is just another municipality in Spain, and the fact that Portugal does not recognize it does not make it a disputed territory. Portugal demands absolutely nothing, and Spain has been Portugal's main partner for a long time. Olivenza's category should adjust to reality. Lopezsuarez (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You claim that "Portugal demands absolutely nothing" yet the border is not marked between the border stone markers 802 and 899, precisely west of Olivença. Also the portuguese state gave the spanish state the reports about the lands that would be flooded by the construction of the Alqueva Dam and named that report "in the spanish state and territory of Olivença". These are facts, not what you say.
You also claim that "Portugal does not recognize it does not make it a disputed territory" is itself contradictory, as the Portugal only land borders are with Spain. Tm (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And i never arrived at a consensus with you in anything in wikidata, contrary to what is claim. I merely reverted your deletion of any reference to the territorial dispute, as not not even the spanish official flag and the coat of arms you can stop from vandalizing by removing them) Tm (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment Reading the English Wikipedia about this issue (which I've never heard before), Olivenza clearly IS a disputed territory, so Lopezsuarez' message above is plain wrong. You cannot expect to solve a dispute by spreading such lies. Yann (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clearly?! I don't know what appears on Wikipedia in English, but it is based on real events. The reality is that in Olivenza there is absolutely no conflict. It is an administrative issue, in any case, and Portugal does not demand the sovereignty of Olivenza, they simply do not recognize Spanish sovereignty over that municipality. Spain and Portugal are friendly and partner countries, there is no diplomatic, military, or social tension. Lopezsuarez (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know if it is a language issue, but "[Portugal does] not recognize Spanish sovereignty over that municipality" is exactly the definition of a territorial dispute. Yann (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Yann says, there is clearly a territorial dispute. Abzeronow (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Poppodoms[edit]

Poppodoms (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Upload copyvio image from Huawei. メイド理世 (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:T-Series7[edit]

T-Series7 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Upload multiple copyvio files. メイド理世 (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

now user talk page has vandalism. メイド理世 (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Blocked, revoked talk page access. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Shaiksadikace2king[edit]

Shaiksadikace2king (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Upload advertising file. メイド理世 (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked by Taivo. Yann (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, uploaded lots of spam, they got deleted with warning, uploaded the same spam again. Taivo (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Kursant504[edit]

Hello,
I strongly suspect that the user Kursant504 lacks neutrality in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.
This Russian user requests, in the majority of his contributions, the removal of images. However, all these images have one thing in common: they all have an informative character about the war in Ukraine and most are part of the Ukrainian public domain.
Some were taken by a member of the Ukrainian army and are, in my opinion, correctly labeled as such at the level of Ukrainian copyright.
Some have been placed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license by their author on the original media and are correctly labeled as such on Commons.
I have not had time to check all his deletion requests, but I think they should all be replaced at most by the {{license review}} template or simply refused.
What should one do when suspecting such an abuse?
Thank you for your response.
Christian28TMA (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I have not had time to check all his deletion requests, but I think they should all be replaced ... or simply refused." it sounds like a very reasonable request...Kursant504 (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't have to eat a whole egg to know it's bad. - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You forgot to mention that many pro-Ukraine Wikimedians agree that many of the photos are copyright violations, such as User:Abzeronow. My living in Russia is utterly irrelavent. If a photo has a label as being free because it was allegedly posted on a particular website, but the photo is not anywhere on said website, then it is proper to nominate it for deletion. If there is a contradiction in the license labels with one source saying commercial use is prohibited and another says it is free, it is fine to have a deletion discussion. If my Ukrainian photo deletion nominations are anti-Ukrainian, then my Russian photo deletion nominations are anti-Russian. We should all agree regardless of political affiliation that copyrighted works are bad for Commons because it deceives people about the copyright status of a photo. I would also like to note that a different editor demanded I get a very harsh block for deletion nominations that admins agreed were absolutely perfect and were eventually deleted (I wrongly assumed that I would not need to spoon-feed other editors an explanations of why colorizations are DWs - that means derivative works). Here are some examples of Russian copyright violations that I nominated for deletion using equally valid arguments as my ones on Ukrainian photos:
Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R80329,_Josef_Stalin.jpg
Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Анна_Ивановна_Щетинина.jpg
Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Maguba_Syrtlanova_awards_(2022-03-01)_02.jpg
Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Brujas_de_la_Noche.jpg
my, as you will say, "anti-Russian" DRs of poster with russian's army hero Commons:Deletion requests/File:A-davydov.jpg
and russian military photos Commons:Deletion requests/Fotos taken not from Mil.ru
and an "anti-French" one too Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Roger_sauvage_pilote_04959.jpg Kursant504 (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Silsilah Kiagus Muh.Saleh.jpg[edit]

Please delete image Silsilah Kiagus Muh.Saleh.jpg, because his lineage has been corrected by lineage expert Kyai Saleh Lateng, Updated image article File:Silsilah_Kyai_Saleh_Lateng.png Kiagus Syarkawi (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. File:Silsilah Kyai Saleh Lateng.png is illegible to the point of being useless.
  2. If you want to nominate an image for deletion, please start a normal deletion request.
  3. You might consider using {{Fact disputed}} on the file page if you believe a file is factually wrong.
  4. There is no administrative issue here, and certainly not a problem with some user's behavior, which is what this page is for. - Jmabel ! talk 06:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Socks and personal image : FYI[edit]

வா செ செல்வம் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , Dr V S Selvam (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , டாக்டர் வா.செ.செல்வம் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , தென்னை மருத்துவர் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , டாக்டர் வா.செ.செல்வம் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , Sathish1110 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

I have blocked the above IDs in ta.wiki, and I see some of them are blocked here. Can admin delete these users' uploads under F10 and/or G10. Just a file remains here. AntanO 09:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Il Nur[edit]

Il Nur (talk · contribs) removes deletion templates from their non-sourced derivatives. Quick1984 (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick1984[edit]

Quick1984 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  выставляет мои работы на удаление, хотя я их делал сам, у меня есть карта России, откуда я вырезаю нужные регионы. Также он выставляет на удаление файли из ЖЖ, где автор разрешал их загружать в Викисклад и там у него свободная лицензия https://acer120.livejournal.com/168185.html. Прошу заблокировать данного Вандала. --Il Nur (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

he puts my works up for deletion, although I did them myself, I have a map of Russia, from where I cut out the necessary regions. He also exposes files from LiveJournal for deletion, where the author allowed them to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and there he has a free license https://acer120.livejournal.com/168185.html. Please block this Vandal--Il Nur (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Il Nur, At first, watch your tongue. Secondly, what do you mean saying ‘I have a map of Russia’? Are you it’s author or copyright holder? Try reading COM:DW. --Quick1984 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Да, у меня есть карта России, сделанная в ручную. Если карту России нельзя загружать, тогда выставляй на удаление все карты по России (Category:Maps of ethnic groups in Russia), всех авторов. И всех стран. (Yes, I have a map of Russia made by hand. If the map of Russia cannot be uploaded, then put all maps of Russia up for deletion) Il Nur (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Il Nur:
  1. Unless a deletion template came from a vandalism-only account, or something of the sort (clearly not the case here) you should not be removing it unilaterally. You may turn it into a full DR to start a discussion. If you continue to remove these unilaterally you will be blocked. And similarly for calling a user a "vandal" who clearly is not.
  2. "у меня есть карта России" is very vague. "Have" as in you drew it from scratch by hand, or what? Any map is to some extent based on prior maps. If the maps it derived from were copyrighted, there may be a problem here. It really helps to start from outline maps etc. that are clearly in the public domain of have clear rights. Is your master map available in some form online (even without a general license to reuse that master map?
Jmabel ! talk 02:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Нет, моя основная карта не в интернете. Даже в этой категории Category:Maps of ethnic groups in Russia, много карт нарисованные на основе других карт, почему они тогда не выставляются на удаление? Il Nur (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Чем мои карты отличаются от этой и других карт? File:Mari people in Mari El by settlements.svg Il Nur (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you think it is correct, you can delete all the files. I don't have any extra time or desire to do this. I think this participant is just chasing me and several other participants from Tatarstan, and most likely this new participant, judging by the manner of speech of User:RedBull1984. Who, in different Wikimedia projects and in different language sections under different nicknames, investigates and conflicts with Tatarstan participants, promoting pro-Russian imperial sentiments. I have no other explanations for the electability of nominating only one participant to remove similar works. Although there are full maps of regions on Wikimedia Commons, even downloaded from the works of acer120.--Il Nur (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weird Myanmar military-related swath of deletion requests[edit]

I was closing some deletion requests on the January 27th, 2024 list when I happened upon a large number of deletion requests by Dane-3051 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Most of these requests were alleging copyright violations (usually cited as being from Facebook). Nearly all were images of military equipment from Myanmar. The files were primarily uploaded by three users: Haruno Sakura from Team-7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), TTL(Facebook) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and KMK from Myanmar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (though there are some of Dane-3051's own images which were nominated for deletion as copyvios too!). None of these nominations provide any evidence and some were blatantly false (such as nominating US Navy images with US Navy EXIF). The attribution to Facebook also seemed suspicious because Facebook strips out camera EXIF and yet all the images contained consistent camera EXIF with other images uploaded contemporaneously by the users. I noted that two of the uploaders do not have a spotless record when it comes to copyvios. I did a few spot checks with reverse image search and none of the chosen images came back as a hit. I voted keep on most of the DRs, but I would like someone else to take a closer look in case I am missing something. There is still something that seems off about this on both sides. Some of the later images I commented on seemed difficult for a civilian to obtain and some are of oddly low quality despite having good resolution. They are educationally quite valuable images though (many are heavily in use) and it is worth being deliberate about this I think. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I checked Haruno Sakura's uploads and concluded that (s)he forged the metadata. According to metadata, all photos was taken on the device Gionee P5 mini. The Gionee P5mini is a smartphone released in April 2016 with 5MP (2,560 x 1,920 px) camera[28]. Oddly, most of the photos were timestamped before 2016, and all of them exceed the maximum dimensions.
Here is an example:
File:MA-firetruck.jpg
  • Camera model : P5 mini
  • Create Date : 2018:12:16 09:01:37
  • Exposure Time  : 1/33
  • F Number  : 2.8
  • ISO  : 81
  • Image Size  : 4000x2668
corresponds to a photo from Myanmar government website.
  • Camera model : NIKON D810
  • Create Date : 2018:09:25 09:50:04
  • Exposure Time  : 1/80
  • F Number  : 5.6
  • ISO  : 2000
  • Image Size  : 2000x1333
And another example is File:MA-Type-81-MLR.jpg, corresponding to a photo published on blogspot in 2014. The text has been intentionally cropped out. 0x0a (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Impressive work. Thank you. I have deleted the images from User:Haruno Sakura from Team-7. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Diniyar Khasanov[edit]

Diniyar Khasanov (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Continuous unfounded accusations of vandalism [29] [30] , despite explanations received from the administrator Jmabel: [31]. Quick1984 (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not pretend that you are conducting this activity with good intentions. Diniyar Khasanov (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done? One week block. Taivo (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Czarnybog[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • What do You mean by "continued uploading" and "final warning"? I uploaded it only once after it was deleted and I don't recall any "final warning". From what I understood, deleted image didn't explain permission to use properly so I uploaded again with better licence template. I couldn't participate in deletion discussion since it was deleted expressly. I'm sorry, I understand from the "Please do not recreate deleted content" note in my discussion that appeared after I re-uploaded that I should have used "Undeletion requests" instead. I understand my mistake but please don't claim that I am some kind of recidivist. --Czarnybog (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • What Jeff meant by "final warning" was the warning that A1Cafel put on your talk page in 2021. I think enough time has passed between that and this incident (which I did promptly send a warning about when it was brought to my attention) that I think the new warning suffices for now. But I'd welcome input from an uninvolved party. Abzeronow (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Czarnybog: You have five notices of copyright infringement (plus DR notices) on your user talk page. Which part of special:diff/575851014 and the warning you got when attempting upload did you not understand? Also, the DR ran for almost three months.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • A1Cafel is a person that at that time has been found to be abusing their authority and was banned from any sort of deletion procedure. We had whole discussion about it here - Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 93#A1Cafel_and_yet_more_abusive_deletions - and there is even my explanation in mentioned discussion. I was accused for copyright infringement and warned after I cropped images that were on Wikimedia for a long time and only later have been found to be in violation of copyright. I was basically paying for someone else's mistakes and I shouldn't have got that warning and there is community consensus about it approved by administrator. Don't tell me now that I'm still paying for A1Cafel's random deletion spree in 2021. One thing Jeff is right about. The deletion request about image re-uploaded by me was hanging there for 5 months, sorry, I got confused. Still, I don't understand why Jeff mentioned I have Deletion Request notices on my Talk page. How is that an argument for putting me on noticeboard? It's a common procedure and all of us got such notices. Even Jeff, I checked. --Czarnybog (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=849079640"