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
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

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.


Prototyperspective and "AI Art Application and Improvements Handbook" on Wikibooks[edit]

I am noticing a pattern in DRs and I'm not sure if it warrants admin action or not. If it does, it shouldn't be by me, as I am active in many of these and related DRs.

The pattern is: an AI-created image is nominated for deletion as being out of scope, then Prototyperspective (talk · contribs) adds it to "AI Art Application and Improvements Handbook" on Wikibooks, and then someone notes in the DR that the file is COM:INUSE.

Bluntly, the only thing any of the images on that Wikibooks page have in common is that they came up in DRs, and I am unconvinced that the page is anything other than an attempt to game COM:INUSE.

Looking to get others' opinions on this. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: That looks fishy to me.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: are you saying The Squirrel Conspiracy's characterization of this looks fishy, or Prototyperspective's conduct? - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: The described conduct.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that is an accurate description, then that is certainly not OK. I'd like to see that backed up by diffs, though, so that we don't each have to go searching for evidence ourselves. - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Convenience link: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AI_Art_Application_and_Improvements_Handbook - Jmabel ! talk 01:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I can explain it to you and I've been open about it:
  • that handbook is not a priority to me but when I see DRs I a) sometimes see the relevant AI images and think about how they could be useful in the context of the DR and b) may find spending some time to expand the wikibook worth my time.
  • Nothing at INUSE suggest that would be "gaming it" and if it is I didn't know but I'd then suggest this is made clear there, that page also says "realistically useful for an educational purpose" where the wikibook makes the application and realistic educational usefulness clear.
  • If you don't consider the uses in that book "INUSE" then you can always just ignore them which is already done. While I don't think deleting AI images even when clear usefulness cases have been clarified and remain unrefuted is within bounds of current WMC policy even if they were not used anywhere, if you agree that it would be then I guess it is.
  • Moreover, the book is new and so new images are added as I come across them now, I haven't substantially changed it again for quite a while. And for the Roman Kubanskiy images, those were some of the very few available for illustrating a section and I added all the good-quality images for that application to its section, not just these.
Prototyperspective (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: : Sorry, here are the diffs:

Worth noting that when the Giovanna IV images were deleted, Prototyperspective put the redlinks back in the book, calling it "unwarranted censorship deletions".

I think that all of this taken together paints a pretty clear picture of why the wikibook exists and how it's being misused. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've voiced similar concerns. Nearly every image in that book is, or was at some point, the subject of a deletion discussion on Commons, and it's not because someone's been going through the book to pick images to nominate for deletion, and it certainly isn't just a weird coincidence either. COM:INUSE is meant to prevent the deletion of images which projects are legitimately using, not as a way to "game" deletion discussions on Commons. See also Commons talk:Project scope#Outdated (does not reflect current admin practices): policy amendment for in-scope exceptions. Omphalographer (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nearly every image in that book is, or was at some point, the subject of a deletion discussion on Commons Very false.
I added images based on their relevance and quality so all of them should be high-quality for the described application. I wonder though why people complain about it here rather than replacing the image with a better one if there is one. In any case, current policy hasn't made clear that INUSE only applies to files that were INUSE before the DR but whether or not that is the case doesn't matter to my freedom to use images as I see fit. If you'd like to restrict this freedom then please add a note like Images that are currently subject of deletion discussions are not allowed to be used in any other Wikimedia project. If they are used there they should be replaced by other users and are not legitimately in use. That would be something to discuss at the policy page. I apologize if my edits to the wikibook I started are considered problematic. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I share the Squirrel's concerns about misuse of Wikibooks, and overall advocacy of out-of-scope AI-generated images when they were told many times that such images are not welcome here. Yann (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's not a "misuse of Wikibooks", you and e.g. Squirrel just don't consider the file-uses in it legitimate which is fine to people.
  • Out-of-scope images made using AI software should be deleted.
  • The deletion requests – which usually nominated large numbers of different files at once – and village pump discussions that I think you're referring to had some people arguing for usefulness and use-cases of AI software in the context of images as well as some against such; there is no policy that says that images made using this novel technology are generally not welcome here but it's certainly the impression I get which may or may not be a problem or a good thing for a good future of WMC. I don't indiscriminately explain specific usefulness cases for images in deletion requests but only those where I can see a realistic educational value (e.g. for few images of a long list of files nominated at once) and voted for deletion in many occasions, while Squirrel wrote here and here Due to both the copyright and ethical concerns, I am always in favor of deleting AI art, especially when we have any non-AI generated images that don't have those concerns.. Again, if you don't see this Wikibook's file-uses or uses of files during DRs as legitimate then users have clarified that ignoring them is fine.
Prototyperspective (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm uncomfortable with complaining about someone's advocacy in an actively discussed issue. I could appreciate him being less voluminous, but he's discussing on a live discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Either way, the constant, personal badgering and tirades about it really to stop. It's certainly not a collaborative way to participate in discussions. Same goes for the walls of text with multiple bullet points. @Prototyperspective: please just make your point next time, leave out the personal comments when you do it, and move on. Everyone knows what your opinion about AI artwork being hosted on Commons is at this point. We don't need it screamed in our faces every there's a DR for AI artwork. Also, stop bludgeoning discussions by responding to everyone who disagrees with you. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never made a personal attack. I think you made several against me if you refer to ad hominem. I would see a point about replying too often if it was coming from somebody else but you are just as much replying as me and most of my comments are replies to you, often to correct misinterpretations or twisting of what I said earlier. I noted that I only ever saw you vote delete and the quote above is quite explicit in admitting this even when not considering your comments in regards to AI images in general. I was trying to reduce my volume but I think I'm allowed to make a few arguments when some of my images are to be deleted without even a deletion rationale explanation and unaddressed explicit clear usefulness cases being clarified.
Again, I'm trying to and already did reduce my volume but you are posting as much if not more than me in regards to this subject. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never made a personal attack "The user seems to be fed up with AI images", "The user is opposed to AI images", "that it can be useful is enough of a reason to not ban it based on your unsubstantiated assumptions and quite clear anti AI bias", just to name a few of the many examples out there. I'm not the subject of the deletion requests and I've also repeatedly told you that I'm bias toward AI or artwork. Yet your still repeating that I am and in discussions where my personal opinions about it aren't even relevant. So yes you are and have been personally attacking me.
Also, in DRs like Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated science fiction you made a main point along with adding 9 bullet points that added absolutely nothing to the discussion outside of just being a needless wall of text. Just write a paragraph or two with your main points and leave it at that. There's no need to flood the DR with multiple bullet points. It's just extra noise that comes off like bad faithed Gish galloping. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a personal attack but may be relevant to the DR so I mentioned it to provide context. It can be relevant that you only ever voted for delete on the many AI-related DRs you participated in and object to AI images on WMC in general. Can be not is. In contrast, you made several ad hominems against me such as Your probably one of those people who think Bitcoin is going to replace fiat currency any second now to aren't you? Lmao. to name just one. With comments like these I hope it's a bit clear how my volume is hard to make smaller since usually you keep making another reply to which at least a brief response seems needed. No, I've not personally attacked you. All of these point made there pertain to the subject and elaborate specific ways specific images can be useful see COM:EDUSE. You nominate a very large number of images at once so I made a brief text for each. I also asked for why a user who voted delete considers the file "OOS" (out of scope) which I thought was due if more than headcounts matter in DRs. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be relevant to the DR if I had a history of spurious, bias DRs related to AI artwork. I don't though and I've told you multiple times I'm not bias towards AI artwork. So your claims about my position in regards to it is patently false and intentionally so. It's not "providing context" or relevant to a DR to go off about how the nominator has a position that they've told you multiple times they don't have. All your doing is poisoning the well for other voters by mischaracterizing my position when you know I'm not bias towards AI or AI generated images. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Telling is different than actively demonstrating; your indiscriminate mass-nominations appear to show a strong bias in how you treat AI works even if you deny you have one or even think you don’t have one. You also have a tendency to make condescending remarks towards people you disagree with and bludgeon discussions at least as much as Prototyperspective, as seen in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated cyberpunk. Personally I think you both need to dial back here and stop using deletion as a sparring ground on this obviously controversial topic. Dronebogus (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's plenty of other DRs besides the one you linked to where people vote delete or say something I disagree with and I don't respond to them. So your claim that I have a tendency to make condescending remarks towards people I disagree with or bludgeon discussions at least as much as Prototyperspective is patently false. I have zero problem responding to people in a DR if they are just going to attack me or otherwise make false comments about the deletion request though. And that's all I was doing. Whereas both you and have made plenty of condescending remarks and bludgeoned discussions when no one even said anything about or to either one of you. At least when I respond it's to address something the person said about me and I'm asking for them to clarify things. Whereas your just whining about how everyone is out to get AI or some dumb nonsense like that. Regardless, if you don't want me to respond so much, cool. Stop attacking me by lying about how I'm bias towards AI artwork when I've told both of you multiple times now that's not my position and I wouldn't need to. Otherwise, I'm going to correct you. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Prototyperspective seems a great fan of AI images and thinks many of them are within project scope when many other users think they are not. That much is no problem; different perspective and opinions are why we have discussions. However on deletion requests Prototyperspective sometimes seems to have trouble assuming good faith from others who disagree with them, accusing them of being "obsessed" or "biased". Repeatedly on DR when I have voted that something is Out Of Scope, they challenge me to explain what I mean by that (the first time I did so) and argue that my stating something is OOS does not make it so (technically correct, but that's why we have more than one person looking at things to make determinations). I think I should note that Prototyperspective *does* sometimes vote for deletion of AI images, especially when they are bad quality. Now to the initial topic: Yes, adding images listed for deletion to somewhere on Wikimedia so they would be "in use" and thus thwarting the deletion request does seem to me to very much fit the definition of Gaming the system. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I get constant bad faith allegations and even ad hominems against me of which I quote d an example above, yet I'm being accused of mentioning in a brief way that people who call for deletion of AI images a) only ever voted delete in AI-related DRs b) quite explicitly back calls to have all AI images not be allowed into WMC regardless whether or not they would be in scope otherwise c) quite explicitly admit this in these discussions and with quotes like Due to both the copyright and ethical concerns, I am always in favor of deleting AI art, especially when we have any non-AI generated images that don't have those concerns. How would this not be a bias in regards to whether an AI image is within scope or not? It doesn't mean your vote isn't relevant, just that you seem to be against all current AI images to begin with. At the same time there are attempts to silence me. I always ever made points that are arguments that pertain to the subject manner and are clear relevant specific arguments; for example I don't write OOS fantasy illustration as a full explanation for why something is outside scope since that is not an explanation. If you still think I was making a comment there that was not in good faith please also link to it so the context and full text can be read. I noticed how people nominated like 100 AI images at once and have done so for a while now, "obsessed" may not be the right word and I apologize if I had chosen wrong wording of what I meant to briefly communicate. In contrast to the people complaining about me here – I very often vote, always with explantory rationales – for the deletion for AI images. Again, I can use images that are in DRs elsewhere and that is not gaming the system and there is no policy whatsoever that would restrict my freedom to use them elsewhere; as said you can just ignore these uses since you don't find them legitimate; people have already said that ignoring these uses would be fine since these uses are not legitimate. It's quite astonishing how much people complain about when they're doing arguably worse things like just calling things fan art when they clearly aren't or starting mass nominations of 50 or so images at once dismissing arguments in advance right from the start as handwaving or accusing me of various ad hominem things. I do see how I should change for example my volume while nothing of that sort has ever come from Infrogmation or Squirrel who wrote the above quote. Basically every AI-related DR has at least to gather at least 3 keep votes since that is roughly the number of delete votes they always, no matter how educationally valuable and high-quality, they seem to get, often without any discernible explanation. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Would it be correct to say that you consider putting AI images up for deletion into use as an appropriate tactic to counter what you consider a bias against AI images on Commons? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, and I never said that. Also I just removed a further image from the Wikibook.
    Relevant concerning the word bias that I used: Bias against AI art can enhance perceptions of human creativity […] We find that people devalue art labeled as AI-made across a variety of dimensions, even when they report it is indistinguishable from human-made art, and even when they believe it was produced collaboratively with a human. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Certainly there's findings from research papers that people in general devalue artwork if it's labeled as made by AI. But you weren't citing those papers in deletion requests when you brought up bias and the comments where you said it were aimed at specific users. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guido den Broeder[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Strongly support an indefinite ban once and for all for their continued incivility and personal attacks. All they do on Commons is stir up dramas; they're banned on 3 other WMF wikis – can we please end their endless blether once and for all? --SHB2000 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In 2022 when you two tried the same but got nowhere, you claimed that I was banned on 5 wikis, that I had a slew of sockpuppets, and that I was evading a global lock.[4] I guess this is progress. You also announced that you would keep coming after me on Commons, even after Yann and Ellywa told you not to. I don't think that repeating the same discussion with nothing new to report is constructive. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I also don't think snarkily trying to avoid a discussion about your behaviour is constructive. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the record, I am not banned on any WMF wiki. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, mate, but nice try. SHB2000 (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I get your point, however a block and a ban is not the same in WMF projects, although yes it's very often being confused. --A.Savin 12:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You neglect to mention that I did provide the requested evidence. I rarely ping, as most users (myself included) find that terribly annoying. But I was absent for a year due to medical complications. Did pinging become mandatory during that time? Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guido: no, in most circumstances pinging isn't mandatory, but it is customary. I take it from your remark above that you'd rather not be pinged.
@SHB2000: when you say, "All they do on Commons is stir up dramas," is that intended to be taken literally? Offhand, [5], [6], and [7] look like productive edits. Are you saying they are not? It looks like he's had a pretty contentious couple of days, but that's a long way from "All they do on Commons is stir up dramas." I take seriously what Jeff G. says above, but please don't muddy the waters. - Jmabel ! talk 01:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, not literally. SHB2000 (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that during all the years that I have been here, I have started only two or three discussions on a drama board. On my own wikis (I have 6) we don't have such boards. We don't need them, and I can't even remember the last time that I blocked someone. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Guido den Broeder: What wikis are those?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see the relevance. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What happens outside of Wikimedia is irrelevant to what happens on Commons. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment While I agree on repeated incivilities by GdB and that a warning message to stop incivilities is relevant, still a "stop vandalizing" template was clearly misplaced here. --A.Savin 02:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Where I wrote I would again calmly refute all your lies, this was in reference to a possible repeat of the discussion of 2022, where I did so, and not to the discussion at #User:SchroCat. Guido den Broeder (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support a block (3 months?), so that they get the message. Yann (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Could you explain to me what the message is? Why should I be blocked when I am the one getting attacked? Are you still claiming that I vandalized this page or do you acknowledge that your warning was misplaced? Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The message is, that you should urgently stop uncivil comments like this one. The fact that a wrong warning template was selected does not make the intended warning from personal attacks null and void. The essence is the same, gaming the system will not work here. --A.Savin 14:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is the user problem noticeboard. If there is a problem with a user, it should be safe for everyone to report so. Do you think that the ad hominem by Ikan Kekek that I responded to, a man who decided he's my enemy to me, was fine? Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You've attacked me ever since I cited COM:INUSE in two or three deletion requests you started. I had literally forgotten about your previous abusive behavior toward me until you started it again in a recent thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you're still reading this, you're the one who's attacking everyone, making Commons a less enjoyable place to edit. --SHB2000 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Back in 2022 there was a thread here about Guido. At the time, I had this to say: The main concern I've had about Guido is that he seems primarily interested in two things on Commons: self-promotion and noticeboard drama. - This still appears to be true. Just glancing at his recent contributions they are largely dramaboards, a couple DRs, and edit warring with TU-nor to include a link to WikiSage, a website Guido founded, at Commons:Alternative outlets, and then even giving TU-nor a "final warning" about it. We don't have a version of WP:NOTHERE, but basically this is a case of COM:NOTHERE. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And on Wikisage we promote Commons. Isn't that we we're supposed to do, support each other? Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No. We provide the best resource we can to our users. That doesn't include linking to another wiki just because they link to us. There is no good reason to link to Wikisage, among all the hundreds/thousands of other online encyclopedic projects out there, as the sole link next to our sister project, Wikipedia, except for your own promotional interests. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    When TU-nor finally took a look at Wikisage, he understood, and stopped editwarring. There the content dispute ended. That is how I solve content disputes, not by running to the drama board. And now you are editwarring in violation of the prevailing consensus. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I removed an unhelpful external link added multiple times by a user here primarily to promote himself and his interests (and willing to issue warnings to those who get in the way). Edit warring is repeatedly making the same edit. You are the only one that has done that here. I find it shocking that even here you're still combative about your abuse of Commons for promotion. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This here is not a dramaboard per se. You turn it into one, every singel time I have seen you editing here. Try to solve conflicts respectfully and without drama here as well. Kritzolina (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you saying that I should ignore personal attacks against me? I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And that is just one way you turn this into a dramaboard. You derail at every possible turn. Kritzolina (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I utterly resent the remark When TU-nor finally took a look at Wikisage, he understood, and stopped editwarring at Commons:Alternative outlets. For one thing, I was not editwarring. I made 1 – one – edit to the page, removing the link to Wikisage with the edit summary "Rmv. self-promotion". My edit was immediately reverted. Even more I resent the creation of a totally unfounded and fictional reason given for my lack of further edits. No, I did not 'finally take a look' at Wikisage. I had already studied it enough to know that the English version is a completely useless arena for writing an encyclopedic article (at least if you want it to be seen). No, I did not 'understand' the reason for keeping it. Truth is, I just could not be bothered to waste time on it, since my main work is in other Wikis. --TU-nor (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done I blocked Guido den Broeder for 3 months. I wasn't aware of the details, but the information given by Rhododendrites, and Guido's answers, clearly demonstrate that he didn't understand what are expected from contributors here. Yann (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, he is now trying to promote "an alternative to Commons, one without the hate and the porn". I wonder if they will, once launched, steal images from Commons, like the one meanwhile banned guy from the so-called "Ruwiki" did. --A.Savin 18:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The message from him is clear: he doesn't belong to Commons. Reblocked indef. without talk page access. Yann (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indef seems right per NOTHERE. I'll also say that I'd support an appeal down the road if it clearly articulated constructive activities he'd undertake and committed not to engage in any promotional activity. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removing talk page access simply for leaving a single comment asking people to join him on a different website is complete overkill Trade (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Long overdue; thanks for the block, Yann! --SHB2000 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel, that if somebody will create a "hate-free" alternative to Commons or Wikipedia, it will inevitably become safeplace of racists, antisemites, neofascists, anti-LGBT propaganda and conspiracy theories. Taivo (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In essence, that's what X has become after Elon wanted to promote "free speech" on the platform. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This guy already has a Wikipedia-clone with mostly copies of articles deleted at the Dutch Wikipedia and some attack pages. Good block. NOTHERE. Natuur12 (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the likely case of launching a Commons' clone with stolen contents from Commons, the WMFOffice should urgently consider a ban, too. --A.Savin 00:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does one steal content that are under a free license? Trade (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Content is considered stolen if it's being imported/uploaded improperly, in violation of the terms of a Free license. "Ruwiki" did exactly this. --A.Savin 01:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would that be in the case of importing/uploading content improperly be if they fail to give attribution and the like? (also, I'm curious: what exactly happened at "ru.wiki"?) --SHB2000 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, most of our content is not Public Domain so proper attribution is absolutely necessary. There is WP article about that resource; en:Ruwiki (website). --A.Savin 02:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, right. Strange (but not surprising) that w:Ruwiki (website) even exists. Thanks for the link. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think WikiSage only has like 38 users to begin with and its mostly garbage. So he probably couldn't even do it if we wanted to. Really his whole thing just comes off like a weird, badly done deep fake or something. I don't know, but there's almost zero shot him of making an actual alternative to Commons. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, I've started a global ban discussion at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Guido den Broeder. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Range block for 2603:7000:B8F0:960[edit]

Can someone more comfortable with rangeblocks please block the 2603:7000:B8F0:960 range for a few days per the behavior at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo de hey duggee - 2014-actual.png (and a few other DRs). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For some clarification, specifically this. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Special:Contributions/2603:7000:B8F0:960:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy, SHB2000, and Yann: Thanks. The most succinct representation is special:contribs/2603:7000:B8F0:960::/64. For reporting, {{ip|2603:7000:B8F0:960::/64}} will do.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is that (how to refer to a range for this purpose) documented somewhere that it should easily have been found? I would never have considered "special:contribs". - Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is explained in w:IPv6 address#Networks. I just copy-paste the URL. Yann (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Normally I'd just append /64 to the IP in question to get the relevant /64 range. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I concur with Yann. Two colons in an IPv6 address or range are an abbreviation for lots of zeros. I don't remember exactly when or where I picked up "special:contribs" (probably from reading diffs on meta), but I first recorded my use of it in m:srg 3+ years ago in August of 2020 in m:special:diff/20352496 as archived at m:Steward requests/Global/2020-08#Global lock for Itsrobloxhereyt. "contributions" is such a long word, I immediately took to that abbreviation, which works everywhere I've tried it, even on language wikis other than English. Yes, I hack URLs.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely agree that's the normal way to write an IP range. I still don't get: is the "special:contribs" (or a longer equivalent) compulsory in this context? Because I would never have guessed it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: We don't have user or talk pages for ranges. The best complete alternatives we have are what I wrote at 12:09 and what Yann wrote at 11:34 on the 13th above. An obtuse alternative like "the /64 surrounding 2603:7000:b8f0:960:3274:dab1:db2e:1198" is easier for me to report, but I don't think it's easier for Admins to use.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Readthispage[edit]

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

Readthispage appears to be a w:WP:NOTHERE issue/single purpose account. All uploads have been 1) crops of Commons images to focus more closely on women's breasts (e.g., to File:Lana Rhoades 2-2017 cleavage (cropped).jpg cropped from this; File:Tanya Tate at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2016 (25037741523) (cropped).jpg cropped from this; etc.); 2) fan art/COM:NOTHOST AI porn; and 3) screenshots of pornstar's breasts. Their en.wiki contribs provide additional context: they have been exclusively to replace images in pornstar bios with ones that more prominently feature their breasts (e.g., [8][9][10]--all of those reverted) and to create a userpage sandbox article on "Bouncing breasts". Discussion seems needed. Эlcobbola talk 13:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think your instinct is correct. I'd say indef them and zap their uploads. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Blocked, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Readthispage for the last images. Yann (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Rostyslav Zhvarnytskyi[edit]

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

Could someone explain to the user why the video game Yandere Simulator isn't in the public domain? He seems to have convinced himself that it is for some reason Trade (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment Last warning sent. Yann (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ssr (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) rude and aggressive comments, threats: [11] [12] Komarof (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like their goal is to get blocked for personal attacks at every project they have ever edited. May be we should help them here. Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No matter how big contributions are? Just to destroy people you dislike using Wikimedia tools? (Ymblanter is the sole author of a series of unsuccesful diffamation campaigns against me in EWP)
Well, when you make success, what is the advantage for Wikimedia? Destroyance of a many-years contributor and you personal pleasure of that? And you are an admin with this approach? --ssr (talk)
You are lying again. No surprise.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kill me --ssr (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did anyone ask you to interfere here? Are you having knowledge of permission problems the topic is about? --ssr (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point of the topic is your incivility, which you also demonstrate right here. Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point of everything here are deletion requests based on copyright claims. My behaviour means nothing. --ssr (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ssr: Aye, there's the rub.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days. --A.Savin 13:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have had to decline their unblock request, and left a friendly note. I hope they don't make this into an indefinite block but instead learn. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Pamphili[edit]

Pamphili (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log This user is a puppet of e.g. User:Livioandronico2013, User:Fiat 500e, User:Labicanense, User:Rione I Monti and User:DellaGherardesca. Same camera and same kind of spamming their own photos all over Wikipedia. After being blocked user reappears with a new account. Disembodied Soul (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. Эlcobbola talk 21:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploads non-free stuff (in good faith) Kelly The Angel (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. Due to large number of copyvios 3 months block (second block). Taivo (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Liepnieks[edit]

This user is uploading many copyright vioations. Each one of their files that I checked is easily found on the web and falsely claimed as own work. I don't have the time to check all their uplaods, so perhaps other users can have a look or maybe an administrator can delete based on COM:PCP. Marbletan (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marbletan: I tagged the remaining files for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Marbletan (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marbletan: You're welcome. You forgot to ping me.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done. The user did not stop after warning and I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyvio and sock[edit]

Tyih (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log and சூர்யநாராயணன் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log seems same user due to same copyvio and edit patterns that I observed in ta.wiki. I think all of their updates should delete and you may do check user. I just report here and admin can take action. ~AntanO4task (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@~AntanO4task: I notified the latter user, too. This appears to be lock evasion by Sweetindian (Sweetindian (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Both blocked. Yann (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User Zeus2107 and copyvio[edit]

Zeus2107 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log uploads so many copyvio images including unauthorized recreation of logo and flags. Admin advice & warning to the user is much appropriate. ~AntanO4task (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@~AntanO4task: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for a week, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zeus2107‎. Yann (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

copyright violation[edit]

none of these files are own work all taken from twitter or Instagram

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Amirshakiba1380 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Milad.jenabi.1994

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erreur de localisation d’un site photographié[edit]

Bonjour, ma requête concerne le manoir de Cléhunault, qui se situe sur la commune de Saint-Martin des prés, et une photo mise sur Wikipedia le localise à Lanrivain. D’autre part la photo est déja ancienne, et le manoir est mieux mis en valeur actuellement. La photo et surtout la publication ont été faites sans autorisation des propriétaires (mon mari et moi). Les informations qui accompagnent cette photo sont fausses. Ce manoir est inscrit ISMH et sa chapelle est classée. Nous sommes ouverts à la visite gratuitement, et j’informe les visiteurs que les photos ne sont pas autorisées. L’erreur, publiée, quant à la localisation, nous fait du tort. je vous avais déjà contacté à ce sujet et vous n’avez malheureusement rien fait. Il est triste de voir que vous puissiez publier de telles erreurs, sans aucun contrôle préalable, et sans en tenir compte lorsque l’on vous informe des erreurs grossières de vos publications. Je peux contribuer à vos publications, mais à condition que ce qui est faux soit retiré. Ma contribution peut être des photos récentes, et surtout l’historique de ce manoir, les dates, horaires et conditions d’ouverture aux visites, ainsi qu’éventuellement des événements particuliers. LOUVEARGENT (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bonjour,
Comme vous ne le mentionnez pas, je suppose que ce sont les photos de Category:Manoir de Cléhunault. J'ai corrigé les articles dans Wikipédia, j'ai renommé les photos, et corrigé leur description. L'erreur vient apparemment de la confusion entre la commune de Lanrivain et un hameau du même nom dans la commune de Saint-Martin-des-Prés. Vous pouvez ajouter des informations dans fr:Saint-Martin-des-Prés. Vous êtes bienvenus pour importer vos propres photos. N'hésitez pas à me demander si vous avez des questions. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Sintela[edit]

Sintela (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) has uploaded multiple files without permission; a couple I've nominated for speedy deletion as copyright violation, and the rest I've nominated for semi-speedy deletion as "no permission." I dream of horses (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Last warning sent, obvious copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Suyash Kumar Singh[edit]

User:Suyash Kumar Singh (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) is a single purpose account on Commons and enwiki whose only edits have been promoting themselves on their user page and uploading personal images. Despite their user pages being speedy deleted several times, they continue to recreate it. I've now blocked them on enwiki as NOTHERE. Could a Commons admin take appropriate action here please? Voice of Clam 07:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Indeed, indef. Yann (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DarkWorld305[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flower1004[edit]

Flower1004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Persistently uploading copyrighted image and falsely claiming at "own work" and also falsely licensing as under CC. Also re-uploading same image that was flagged for CSD to circumvent. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 18:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done All their uploads were done at the same time. Gave them a final warning. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IlMarcheseDelGrillo[edit]

IlMarcheseDelGrillo (talk · contributions · Statistics) is, per metadata of uploaded pictures and their crosswiki activity, a sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. Not it was created a day after Pamphili (talk · contributions · Statistics) was created. Block and tag advised. A09 (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

神手阿丁 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log sockpuppet of Nipponese Dog Calvero, blocked on enwiki. DefenderTienMinh07 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For some reason they insists on requesting the renaming of this file, despite having been denied three times and reverted one. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked the user indefinitely and deleted multiple empty categories. Taivo (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DiGeozalyan[edit]

DiGeozalyan (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log continues uploading clear copyvios after the last warning from Marcus Cyron last December. Günther Frager (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. One week block. Copyvio is deleted. Taivo (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LDH8964[edit]

LDH8964 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

See § User:BHO8964 above and [13], clear sockpuppetry going on here. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - useless contributions} 12:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Who is the master account? Yann (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: I'd assume it's User:BHO8964. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually it is from Category:Sockpuppets of Nipponese Dog Calvero. Yann (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gasforth-2021 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log Upload copyvio multiple image. メイド理世 (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@メイド理世: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above. I also gave them a final warning.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok メイド理世 (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done. One week block. I deleted speedily one file and nominated one for regular deletion as likely copyvio. Taivo (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Taivo: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

7-cm Mr Chung from Hong Kong[edit]

7-cm Mr Chung from Hong Kong (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Highly disruptive en:WP:SPA created only to vandalize. Nominated several featured picture to deletion with only to disrupt Commons. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 04:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user should be indef. blocked and all their edits should be reverted. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 04:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Due to its nature, the DR should also be deleted. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 04:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is also clearly a sock and an attack account. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 04:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Utkarsh555 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Uploads non-free files Kelly The Angel (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]