Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

Archives
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

Note

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

Laurel Lodged

[edit]

Online translation: I ask you to block the participant for many offensive edits in the Category:Orthodox Church in America. --Ыфь77 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ыфь77, could you provide more information about your request? Kadı Message 22:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume this is regarding redirecting the category to Category:Orthodox Church in America (Moscow Patriarchate), and the subsequent edits they made there. I'm not expert but I do think those edits were incorrect. The Orthodox Church in America is not under the authority of the Russian Patriarch. Their headquarters is in Virginia and their leader is from Boston.They split with the main church after the Bolshevik Revolution and were formally granted autocephaly in 1970.
For what it's worth, which I know is not much, there was substantial religious category-related disruption by this same user on en.wp [1]. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Online translation: Beeblebrox is absolutely right. The Orthodox Church in America is autocephalous, recognized by 5 other autocephalous churches. And then Laurel Lodged comes along and adds the outdated, non-neutral and derogatory clarification of "Moscow Pariarchate". If you insult one person, you can demand a global block, but here an entire church with over 70,000 followers is insulted. Inciter of religious hatred - is this the kind of glory that Wikimedia Commons needs? Оригинал: Beeblebrox абсолютно прав. Православная церковь в Америке автокефальна, её признают 5 других автокефальных церквей. И тут появляется Laurel Lodged и добавляет устаревшее, ненейтральное и уничижительное уточнение "Московский патриархат". Если вы оскорбите 1 человека, то для вас можно требовать глобальной блокировки, но в данном случае оскорбляется целая церковь, насчитывающая более 70 000 последователей. Разжигатель религиозной розни - это та слава, которая нужна Викискладу? Ыфь77 (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info: This is the 7th time Laurel Lodged is reported on ANU: 1 2 3 4 5 6 --Achim55 (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt LL meant anything by this edit. Saying a church is under the wrong patriarch is not inciting religious hatred, User:Ыфь77. Most of the previous incidents seem to be petty spats over pedantic category issues, so I don’t see any point in bringing it up except to give unneeded credibility to a clearly vexatious ANU filing. No action is needed here. Dronebogus (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Online translation: Action is required: it is necessary to rename the categories that humiliate the followers of the Orthodox Church in America. Moreover, @Laurel Lodged: itself must do this or oblige it not to interfere with the renaming. 2) It is advisable to explain to Laurel Lodge at the administrative level that he is wrong and to limit him in religious categorization, since he himself does not feel where he rules. Ыфь77 (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By comparison, if he had renamed "India" to "India (British Empire)", would you also have written that no action was required? Ыфь77 (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like the longstanding Category:British Raj? It would depend on the intended scope.
That said: yes, the top-level category for the Church should reflect its current name and status. If it is now autocephalous, its former subordination to a particular patriarchate does not belong as part of that name. @Laurel Lodged: do you disagree with that? If not, could you explain why you moved the category?
In general, I recommend strongly against moving longstanding categories unilaterally unless the move is obviously uncontroversial (e.g. fix spelling or capitalization; make it uniform with a well-established pattern; etc.), and clearly this was not "obviously uncontroversial." Even as an admin, I don't do that. - Jmabel ! talk 05:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Online translation: No, in the example I was referring to modern India in what I wrote. Ыфь77 (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ыфь77: it looks like you started this discussion without informing Laurel Lodged. When you bring a complaint to COM:AN/U, you are required to notify the user in question on their user talk page. I have now notified them. - Jmabel ! talk 19:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Online translation: It's not my fault that Template:User3 doesn't notify the mentioned user. Ыфь77 (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ыфь77: but it is your fault that you did not notify them on their user talk page, as the instructions at the top of this page explicitly say you must do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal Thanks to @Jmabel: for bringing this to my attention. To @Achim55: I don't think that our paths have crossed, but you seem to have done some digging. This it is very bad form. In a court of law, it is usual for the Judge to pronounce his judgement in a case before the Prosecutor is permitted to adduce evidence of previous wrongdoing that would permit the Judge to impose an appropriate sentence. In Achim's contribution, he has dispensed with the niceties of trial and judgement and gone directly to sentencing. But since the dirty laundry has been displayed for all to see...In the case of no. 6, the final contribution was "Maybe the perceived harassment is in the mass pinging through multiple nominations... it seems to be a technical issue.". Which was exactly what had happened. No case to answer. Just a trigger-happy complainant. In the case of No. 5, that's just the usual Azeri crew miffed that I've pointed out that there is No-FOP in Azerbaijan. It was blown up out of all proportion. A small problem with a category template. They can lodge no such complaint now that I have switched tactics from nominating whole categories of pics of the President of Azerbaijan opening new buildings to nominating (many many many) individual images. They squeal, but the majority will be deleted. A lot of wiki-lawyering will save some of them no doubt. In the case of no. 4, it's the same Azeri crew complaining that the victory of Azeri forces over the Republic of Artsakh is not recognized in the wholesale renaming of Armenian places to Azeri names. The nomination has not succeeded. I think that everyone (bar the Azeris) recognizes that the mass expulsion of an ethnic group from a city (Stepanakert) does not mean that their heritage disappeared overnight. In the case of no. 3, that was raised by the nominator in this case. As one of the admins in that case opined, "I’m afraid there needs to be restrictions placed on Ыфь77 from making changes to categories related to Christian denominations.". It's a shame that that did not happen. In the case of no. 2, that was just embarrassing - for the nominator. He failed utterly to define his complaint, let alone make a case for any wrongdoing. In the case of no. 1, it was - yet again - the usual Azeri crew annoyed that I would not admit the Artsakh never existed and should just submit to its eradication from the history books. The things complained of then were while the 2nd war was on-going and the situation was still fluid. The Azeri victory in the war has made the matters moot. In summary, these cases show that the AN/U process has been abused for POV-pushing of the worst kind. I advise all to ignore them as they are irrelevant to the current complaint.

I see no evidence adduced of "offensive" behaviour. The complainant is not entitled to make a complaint on behalf of the Orthodox Church in America or the Russian Orthodox Church. He has no standing to make such a complaint. Let the OCA / ROC bring it's own complaint if it wants. The complainant can only complain about behaviour that was offensive to himself. That is, I used language or engaged in behaviour that was personally defamatory, untrue, abusive etc. about him. No such evidence was adduced because there is none. It never happened.

What then? Perhaps he meant that the edits were acts of vandalism, designed to ruin Commons. His English is not so good, so perhaps that's what he meant. There are four responses to this charge: (A) Autocephaly is disputed in definition and in practical operation; (B) The granting of autocephaly to the OCA in particular is disputed. The Wiki article on autocephaly specifically says: "... the main opponents in the dispute being the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which claims this right as its prerogative, and the Russian Orthodox Church (the Moscow Patriarchate), which insists that one autocephalous jurisdiction has the right to grant independence to one of its components. Thus, the Orthodox Church in America was granted autocephaly in 1970 by the Moscow Patriarchate, but this new status was not recognized by most patriarchates. It's also notable that the OCA did not attend the 2016 Pan-Orthodox Council. (C) Even if a chuch body or ecclesiastical jurisdiction can be affirmed to be truly autocephalic, it is still in a fraternal relationship with the body that granted the autocephaly in the first place. In the case of the five ancient jurisdictions of the Church (Pentarchy), the daughter churches still recognise the authority of one of the five. And of course the Ecumenical Patriarch himself is always acknowledged as the Primus inter pares within the Eastern Orthodox communion. In the chart to the right, it specifically calls out the seven churches that are listed as being "Autonomous under Russia". (D) Even if the OCA does not directly "report" to the Patriarch of Moscow, it is still a useful disambiguator to have for Eastern Orthodox church bodies in North America. The situation is very confused in North America. There are many churches that are daughters of many of the pentarchy and many metropolitans who all claim roughly the same name. It gets even more confused when there are splits and each calls the other schismatic or heretical. Ordinary readers cannot be expected to know this involved history. Some assistance is needed in navigation space. Lesser navigational assistance is needed in article space since there is so much more room to tease out subtle differences. In category space, all we have is parentheses and a lot of information has to be crammed into a small space. Consider Category:Eastern Orthodoxy in North America or better still, Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates in North America. Look at what is listed here:

  1. Category:Orthodox Church in America (originally called "Category:Orthodox Church in America (Moscow Patriarchate)" in my edits
  2. Category:Archdiocese of America (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
  3. Category:Archdiocese of North America (Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch)
  4. Category:Metropolis of the Americas (Romanian Orthodox church)

Don't they all look very samey? And that's just the Eastern Orthodox Church. Seriously, without the disambiguator, how could the average reader possibly tell them apart? I'll rest for the moment. This is already looking like a wall of words. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I’m going to informally recommend some kind of boomerang for Ыфь77. Declaring yourself a representative of a large demographic and getting offended for them is bad; accusing another user of inciting religious hatred is worse. I don’t think it should be serious, just an narrow interaction/topic ban +/- a formal warning. But their conduct against LL here seems plainly abusive even if, for the sake of the argument, we assume they’re actually right. Dronebogus (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Online translation: In short, is humiliating a church organization a good thing, but standing up for them a bad thing? Is that your opinion? Ыфь77 (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not even going to try and explain why that argument is bad. It should be blatantly obvious. Dronebogus (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laurel Lodged: given that you say there is dispute here about autocephalous status, why does that parenthetical (which effectively takes sides in said dispute) need to be in the category name? Is there some other "Orthodox Church in America" with which this could be confused? - Jmabel ! talk 04:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I think that the parenthetical differentiation is necessary to disambiguate for the general reader between churches in North America that have very similar names. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to separate them given the closeness of the names. In article space, it's possible to get around this problem since you can write notes and have "See also" sections. This is much more difficult to achieve in categorical space. There is little room available in the name to contain the information that would not result in an unwieldy title. So while a few extra bytes are acceptable, it cannot to too long. In the case of the category name for the OCA, how do describe that it was started by Russian emigrees, came under the Russian Orthodox Church, disassociated from the ROC after its subversion by Bolsheviks, amalgamation with Romanian and other Orthodox churches, independence as the ROC Outside Russia, re-absorption by the ROC. It's complicated. How could one phrase in parentheses hope to convey all that history? I don't think that it's too mush of a divergence from canonical accuracy to say that it has always been in Eastern Orthodoxy and always within the "family" of the "Patriarchate of Moscow". It's a matter of politics as to whether members of the OCA would regard the patriarchal throne as having been in a state of sede vacante for significant periods of the 20th century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: (1) what is the "very similar name"? (2) Why are {{Cat see also}} or {{Distinguish}} any less useful on Commons than in Wikipedia? - Jmabel ! talk 17:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to @Jmabel: The similar names are listed in numbers 1 to 4 above.
  1. Category:Orthodox Church in America (originally called "Category:Orthodox Church in America (Moscow Patriarchate)" in my edits
  2. Category:Archdiocese of America (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
  3. Category:Archdiocese of North America (Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch)
  4. Category:Metropolis of the Americas (Romanian Orthodox church)
While {{Cat see also}} and {{Distinguish}} are useful, they don't appear in the suggestions or the search box when one begins to type in things like "Orthodox Church in America". Again, looking at an article or even a category when it gets selected is all very well, but it does not assist in the first level of the dropdown box of the navigation. Categories are primarily about ease of navigation. Providing relevant information at the first point of contact is better than many re-directs and false navigations. In many cases, you could be at a depth of 4 layers of a tree structure of the OCA before you would begin to suspect that it is affiliated to the Moscow patriarchate rather than the Constantinople patriarchate. That's just a bad navigation experience and there is no need for it to happen when minimal parenthetical disambiguation solves the problem. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate the point that there are many strains of Russian Orthodoxy, I have created Category:Russian Orthodoxy. See also here. All are affiliated to Russian Orthodoxy, some more loosely than others. Of course the ROC would claim that any ecclesial body in the category that is not in communion with the Patriarch is uncanonical or schismatic or heretical or all three. And the True Believers would probably say the same about the ROC adding that it is an agent of Russian Security Forces. So as a compromise, I could live with a rename of the OCA to Category:Orthodox Church in America (Russian Orthodoxy). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Online translation: I'm against it again. The Orthodox Church in America is a multinational denomination (including Bulgarians, Romanians, and Albanians) and primarily an American Church. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: those other names are not nearly similar enough to create a need for a parenthetical disambiguation in the category name. I hope you are not being disingenuous here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point was not to show that the names were similar. It was to show that there are many entities within the family of Russian Orthodoxy. The previous point listed the similar names. Imagine what they would be like without their parenthetical disambiguators. Who would know what family / patriarchate they were in? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: "Who would know what family / patriarchate they were in?" Someone who looks at parent categories, or reads hat text, or looks at the corresponding Wikipedia article (or possibly Wikidata, which should have such information but may not). This is not normally information we carry in category names. We don't have "Category:Karaism (Judaism)" or "Category:Church of Sweden (Lutheran)". It's not how we name things. - Jmabel ! talk 22:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of a few extra bytes, why send people down rabbit holes? Isn't it better that the first click gets them to where they want to be? This is categorical space where ease of navigation and predictability of navigation is more important than a strict adherence to the official name of an entity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Online translation: Is the purpose of categorization to inform people? And do people need such at least non-neutral, and at most offensive information? Ыфь77 (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Online translation: I repeat: Laurel Lodging believes that it understands the structure of the Orthodox Church better than the 5 autocephalous churches. Can you see the documents confirming that he is an EXPERT in Orthodoxy? Ыфь77 (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ыфь77: if you continue to insult the user with whom you are in dispute, and to say you know what they believe rather than sticking to the conduct at hand, I will support Dronebogus's suggestion of a boomerang block, which up to now I had not been considering. - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Online translation: I will remain silent, but you will also make a decision. Past experience has shown that there may not be a decision despite all the arguments. Ыфь77 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Online translation: This is written by a man who separated the Church of Crete from the Patriarchate of Constantinople (although it is part of it), but for some reason joined the Church in America to the Moscow Patriarchate (although it is not part of it). I see either a biased attitude or an absolute lack of mastery of the subject of categorization. Ыфь77 (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is written by a man who denies that the Archdiocese of Crete is an Archdiocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Perhaps his mastery of the subject of categorization is less absolute than he imagines. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Online translation: There is nothing denied in this edit, take a closer look. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Online translation: Will there be a solution?--Ыфь77 (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ыфь77: The solution is for you to calm down. Please do that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Online translation: I got the impression that "Wikimedia Commons is a place where anyone can insult." Ыфь77 (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formal request for a w:WP:BOOMERANG against Ыфь77

[edit]

This user has continued picking on LL after being warned about it and saying they would stop. I would like to formally suggest they are sanctioned for this behavior, esp. since I noticed they’ve already been blocked once before and generally appear to have a history of disrupting this topic area. Dronebogus (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Online translation: Is it an insult to point out that LL puts his opinion above the opinion of the 5 autocephalous Orthodox churches, without being an expert in Orthodoxy? This is just a statement of fact. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not alleging that; you are alleging LL is promoting religious intolerance and hatred. That is clearly an insult against one’s character. Dronebogus (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Online translation: This is a logical conclusion from my previous message. If you can ignore the opinion of a religious organization, then you should not consider the organization itself. So much for religious intolerance. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User uploading own pictures over multiple usernames

[edit]

I have noticed a user uploading its own photos using multiple strange usernames like FlaumeSteeIronm yrrou (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , ZEWIA dumlwp TELEAM (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and RENMIN Leei 2025 HUA (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  over the past few years. Most of these user pages appeared as galleries of the user uploaded using that account and most of these usernames have only less than 500 edits like this and this. Almost all files are named with HK XXX XXX ...(example) with metadata almost from the same device. These usernames were quickly abandoned and then a new strange username was created for the same purpose.

I found it very annoying and difficult to track how these accounts are doing. Can a user upload or edit like this? If not, it should be regarded as sockpuppetry and be banned.

More bunch of these:

興華街 (Hing Wah Street) - 💬 - 📝 06:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a link but I remember that this has already been discussed years ago. IIRC it wasn't treated as abusive behavior. --Achim55 (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such a large number of accounts by the same user is a problem. I propose blocking them all, except the oldest account. Yann (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have category:Sockpuppets of Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1. Blocking makes no sense, he never reuses old accounts, always creates new one. Taivo (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning that searching and tagging all users with this kind and after a while, indefinitely repeated. Simply doing this can't solve the sockpuppetry issue. May have to consider giving him a warning or else block his IP. Also, though not damaging the overall reputation of Commons, the use of multiple accounts to do any edits on Commons is both questionable and is a loophole for all Wikis (since a Wikimedia account can be used on all Wikis unless blocked). 興華街 (Hing Wah Street) - 💬 - 📝 13:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it's certainly very odd behavior, the photos uploaded are always high-quality, in project scope, with good descriptions, are geotagged and have very good categorisation. So I don't see any problem here. I'm sure they have their reasons for doing that & oppose taking any action againest them, as the contributions are very good. ~TheImaCow (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. As weird as it may be, using multiple accounts in itself is not explicitly disallowed; using them abusively (such as evading blocks) is, but I don’t see that here. Since the user hasn’t done anything out of line, I don’t see any harm in letting them be and treating them as separate accounts altogether. S5A-0043🚎(Leave a message here) 03:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a request for comment on Meta for further discussion. 興華街 (Hing Wah Street) - 💬 - 📝 09:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is a completely stupid idea, but I wonder whether it is possible that the user has some good reason for this behaviour. Could it be that they use these “disposable accounts” in order to escape Chinese surveillance measures? If that, or something simular, would be possible we should accept the behaviour inspite of the little bit of trouble it causes for us. I would not call the quality of the images “high”, but they are reasonable everyday photos with clear documentary value and sometimes certainly very useful. – Aristeas (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jacsal2244

[edit]

Vandalism/F10 images. JayCubby (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
I found this through NewFiles, which is polluted with legitimate uploads such as Flickr dumps and the hewiki collaboration. Is there a filtered tool I'm missing out on? JayCubby (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not, the best tool is eyes and the refresh button. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be one, the Newbie uploads tool but I'm not sure what happened to it. --Ratekreel (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JayCubby, I use toolforge:nfp, which filters out uploads by autopatrolled users (so hopefully most of the mass Flickr uploads). Queen of Hearts (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Queen of Hearts! JayCubby (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

أحمد 04

[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. That's true. 12 months ago I would block him, but now he has worked 12 months without uploading copyvios. Taivo (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio again

[edit]

Газовщик (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) recent blatant copyvios after the last warning. Komarof (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this into account, probably created for further violations. Komarof (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked three months. Bedivere (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:副代表

[edit]

Soon after releasing from a short block, this user restarted mass-uploading copyvio portraits. Netora (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Indef-blocked. Nuked. Bedivere (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SDVBou

[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked one week. Bedivere (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User Harnessed2346

[edit]

Harnessed2346 (talk · contribs) has uploaded a fair number of copyrighted images of animated characters that need to be deleted. Would an admin review and delete as needed? Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I mass deleted them. Taivo (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Fidelis Tobias

[edit]

Por favor necesito que algún administrador que se detenga o bloqueé a este usuario (este usuario violó los derechos de autor). AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No sabía que estos logotipos tenían derechos de autor. Felipe Fidelis Tobias (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Felipe Fidelis Tobias:Cada sitio web aparece "All rights reserved" en la parte abajo de cada sitio web, debes tener mas cuidado con ese simbolo del copyright o "all right reserved" como este "©️". AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pero con o sín una noticia explícita, es casi universal que lo que puede ser protegido en el alcance de derechos de autor es protegido. Vea Commons:Reglas de derechos de autor por tema#Imágenes provenientes de internet. - Jmabel ! talk 01:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow@Bedivere@Taivo:any opinion? (google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I warned the user. Taivo (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noahbug05

[edit]
✓ Done. I warned the user. A lot of uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmd5i

[edit]

AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 No action needed for now. If there continues a disagreement, regarding the correct placement of the eagle's head, then you could come and report again. Right now I don't think there's any administrative action to be taken other than warning the user. Bedivere (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


User:TK2264

[edit]

Soon after releasing from a short block, this user restarted uploading unfree copyvio logos. Netora (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. One month block (second block). Taivo (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Unionofpeopleni

[edit]

Copyvio after copyvio, has been warned before. Needs latest uploads nuked. JayCubby (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly two recent uploads, both copyrighted images linking explicit sources that give no indication of the claimed license. Yes, those should be deleted.
@Unionofpeopleni: I'm not sure you even understand what is wrong with doing this. If you respond here within 48 hours and discuss why you thought these were OK, we can explain the issue to you. Otherwise, I'm going to have to block your account so that you cannot proceed without that discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicreator1231

[edit]

Persistent uploading of copyright materials. File:Nichkhun.png is a reupload of similar deleted File:Khungolfing.jpg, File:Nichkhun HVK.jpg, and File:NICHKHUN.b.png. Wikicreator1231 also uploaded their uploads to Flickr to "loophole" their way in, likely to bypass scrutinization considering that it's autoreviewed by bot. In addition, on Special:Permalink/997790391#File:Nichkhun HVK.jpg, where https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJkRNoQf0c0 was mentioned by Wikicreator1231, in which the exact same frame for those undeleted/deleted images could be found in the same link, the undeleted one could be found around 12:25~12:30. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Blocked by Explicit for 1 week with copyvio deleted. Leaving this here for the record if any admin, including Explicit, wants to adjust the block considering their dishonest actions. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=998348223"