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
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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 fou 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.

Mass vandalism/falsification on 'Slavic' issues

[edit]

195.12.232.227 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
195.12.232.251 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
2001:9e8:54d4:7a00:e83c:352c:aa30:27f (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
2001:9e8:54e7:c400:6cd7:136:8233:5287 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
2001:9E8:54D4:E800:E17B:28B6:CD6D:F281 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
93.132.166.138 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
93.135.40.112 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
83.135.190.74 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
Over the last couple of weeks, I have encountered a years-long (since 2022 at least) campaign of adding very dubious and POV-driven categories to a host of unrelated things. E.g. 'Slavic' and 'Church Slavonic' from Byzantine emperors ([1]), ancient frescos ([2] or [3]), Roman saints (1st-century saint is a Slav) that predate the arrival of Slavs to topics that concern the Turkic Bulgars ([4] or [5]) before their Slavicization, or the Arab Abgarids ([6]) as well as the wholesale invention of things like Category:Slavic astronomy, which should give you an idea of the POV at play. This activity also seems to very strongly overlap with attempts to add the term 'Lechitic' (almost everything in Category:Lechitic nobility was added by one of the IPs of this campaign, apparently per the Lechina Empire hoax/fringe theory) or 'Bohemian' or 'Varangian' etc (e.g. a momument to the medieval Bulgarian tsar Samuel has a Bulgarian lion, but this is a 'Ruthenian' lion) to a whole lot of different Slavic topics, presumably in an attempt to make all Slavs part of one 'Slavic' super-nation? (e.g. a Serbian noble family is now also 'Bohemian', while the founders of the Second Bulgarian Empire, who were of mixed ethnic origin, are now Slavs, Varangians and Volga Bulgarians all at once). The edits happen by different IP addresses usually originating in the Netherlands or Germany, but this does not have to mean anything; they correlate strongly with the blocked user Sibinia (talk · contribs) (cf. [7]) as well as Lchunter (talk · contribs), who in a similar spirit of ecumenical protochronism has added such things as 'Hun nobility' to a lot of pages (e.g. the Hungarian king Matthias Corvinus or the Byzantine house of Laskaris), only to also connect the Magyars to the Lechites ([8]), so in the end all are one, namely Slavs. This is a difficult case to address, as the edits have been on a massive scale, there is no single account, and every day there are one or two IPs going about this sort of thing (I have listed above a handful, there are many more). Pinging also @Future Perfect at Sunrise: and @Silar: , whom have seen engaged in reverting this sort of edits before. Constantine ✍ 08:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those appear to boil down to 195.12.232.0/24, 2001:9e8:5400::/40, and 93.132.166.138/24, and 93.135.0.0/16 in ASNs with ranges 195.12.224.0/19, 2001:9e8:4000::/35, and 93.132.0.0/14 (the last of which is too big).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this here. This is long-term abuser User:Kriestovo Nysian aka User:Sibinia (the latest named sock account I've been aware of was User:Vřetíle); I've been aware of them for a couple of years now but it's very tiresome to clean up after them. Their editing is a strange mixture of sometimes being merely pedantic (e.g. creating huge amounts of over-categorization), sometimes genuinely misguided (e.g. mislabeling Greek-language artifacts as Church Slavonic because of the similarity of scripts), often tendentious, and sometimes downright vandalistic (deliberate invention of artefacts and falsification of sources). And they are quite unique among the disruptive users I've known in that their vandalism and POV-pushing rarely manifests itself in article edits, but instead in creating "walled gardens" of metadata links, creating tangled webs of Commons categories, Wikidata entries, images, image metadata, and Wikidata-driven infoboxes, all of that with a view of pushing some bizarre POV notions about ancient Slavs. They are usually at least as active on Wikidata as they are here. We'd need a simple way of radically nuking everything they do and add, across projects and namespaces, for every new IP they use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere, @Aafi, How much overlap (if at all) is there between the commons and wikidata admin corps? @Future Perfect at Sunrise, Global rollback and Writ keeper's Mass rollback script should do the trick. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 22:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked 2 accounts. For the IPs, please create a request for check user. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kriestovo Nysian. Constantine ✍ 15:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann @Future Perfect at Sunrise, I can do the cleanup (with massrollback) if needed. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 19:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Note that several IPs in the 2001:9E8:5400:0:0:0:0:0/40 range have been active right through yesterday. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: massrollback is not doing the job for me at present, but I rolled back these edits for you manually, going back to 1 December.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It's unfortunately to be expected that mechanical mass rollback won't work for all cases here, because a lot of the edits are page creations (new categories or image uploads), or sequences of multiple socks/IPs editing the same page, so there'll often be no clean version to revert to. BTW, is there anything we can do about the created pages? Does Commons even have a policy that pages/files created by ban-evading socks can be speedily deleted, or would everything have to go through regular deletion requests? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This falls under CSD G3 All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The abuser is currently aggressively revert-warring under 89.245.176.239 and again the 2001:9E8:5400:0:0:0:0:0/40 range. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And through new account User:Romnsrcs. Can somebody block please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
83.135.190.0/24 is another stable, small range that would be worth blocking (has been used exclusively by the vandal for a year, and has been quite active throughout the last days.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: User:Krd blocked the recent sock accounts and several of the recently active IP ranges based on the checkuser report. Thanks everybody for helping out with this! Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Future Perfect at Sunrise Is mass rollback needed for any IPs/IP ranges? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AbchyZa22

[edit]

AbchyZa22 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) The user keeps uploading company logos, some of which were removed for overstepping the terms of COM:TOO (it seems he's trying to alter the conditions in Wikimedia Commons pages to keep certain controversial logos), and has been uploading some images with copyright issues, despite having been blocked several times. The latest incident was the upload of a derivative image taken directly from a hosting service (including its watermark). Taichi (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Taichi:A ver los logos simples que yó publique está en el Dominio Público ({{PD-textlogo}}) ,no se puede remover según COM:Copyright rules (are logos simples are OK). AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AbchyZa22, ¿Por qué estás subiendo logos en formato jpg? Es mal formato para todos los imagines de logos porque tienen artefactos. Especialmente los logos que crees de las SVGs como asi! Por favor, no creas las JPGs de esas! Cree las PNGs! Ve a ver {{Convert to PNG}} Bastique ☎ let's talk! 00:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Taichi: it would help a lot if you would point at particular files you think are problematic rather than effectively saying "look through all of his uploads, some of them are bad." Also "trying to alter the conditions in Wikimedia Commons pages" is extremely vague, please provide links. - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At a quick look, about 20% of AbchyZa22's uploads have been deleted. That is a very seat-of-the-pants estimate, though. - Jmabel ! talk 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: If the user continues to make 20% of uploads that conflict with copyright, even after two administrative blocks, something is not right. The user should stop uploading after his first block. Don't worry Jmabel, if you want to reject the request in your lax way, I don't object, but what the user does after this is recorded and if I see repetitions of the same problem, I will take into account your considerations, which I do not share. This my last comment. Taichi (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. @AbchyZa22 has been very active in asking questions about their uploads, seeing if these are okay or not, as you can see by several topics on my user talk page. I also think some of these nominations are edge cases. I believe they have good faith and are learning. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 00:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Well, there are some things about AbchyZa22 that are uncommon, in my interactions here in Commons. First, although they are a bit too insistent at times, they often ask when in doubt. I do think they are learning, and that is okay, but it's not okay to pretend to be always learning by making mistakes repeatedly. They should simply not upload images with dubious copyright, and then ask about them. First ask, then upload, but only when in doubt (don't ask everything! be bold but at the same time be cautious). I've had some interactions with AbchyZa22 and think they are well-spirited but I don't find acceptable their behaviour in the long-term. And the latest copyright violation warnings don't help. Bedivere (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Buenas @AbchyZa22: . Por favor avísame si necesitas una traducción o aclaratoria sobre estos mensajes. Saludos, --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus:Thank you for worrying me, the problem is that this User wants to block me, what I did was publish company logos (most of them are simple peer COM:TOO) but the User nominated DR a simple air France logo (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo text Air France (1990).jpg). (google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kind regards @AbchyZa22: . Please let me know if you need a translation or clarification about these messages. Cheers,
translator: --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment not specifically on AbchyZa22: just deletion rate as such is not always a good marker of whether someone's uploads are bad. Someone uploading logos, unless they are pretty expert on TOO, is going to have a higher than average number of cases where they got it wrong. This is very different than (for example) claiming someone else's photo as your own. Similarly, in the last week or so I've uploaded a lot of photos of copyrighted art by the late Cecilia Cuțescu-Storck, which I promptly deleted and added notes in categories like Category:Undelete in 2040 because it is all still copyrighted in her native Romania. I would hope no one thinks that is a problem with my uploads, it was quite intentional.
More specifically on AbchyZa22: his judgment in terms of TOO, or whether there is some special carve-out under Venezuelan law, or whatever, could be better, but again: this is very different than claiming someone else's photo as your own. - Jmabel ! talk 22:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel:Dont worry Jmabel (all humans can mistakes sometimes but its OK),With respect to Venezuelan law, any work (for example logos, flags, coats of arms, etc.) created by public sectors are in the Public Domain according to article 325 of the LOTTT (see last paragraph {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}) (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AbchyZa22: ¿En qué sentido estás diciendo que yo he cometido un error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 06:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel:Nada olvidenlo no cometiste ni un error. AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OddHerring

[edit]

Note that this follows closely on https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Vandalism&oldid=969042909#Kontributor_2K started by OddHerring - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OddHerring (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
There has been an edit-war on these two files:

The subject was about the unilateral decision to declare these files superseded by the user's newly-created versions that currently stand on top of the pages of the files above.
Incidentally, some categories have been removed on the first user action (file #1, file #2) (although there was no miscategorisation, as shown by the fact that user's files have been has been properly categorised in these), which I didn't notice straight away, to me what was likely to trigger an edit-war was in first place the inclusion of the {{Superseded}} template instead of inserting the new files as other versions in a neutral way.
One can acknowledge that there has been an attempt at dialogue, for the user came to my talk page, but first with a {{Uw-vandalism2}} (diff) and then, later, with a “I don't want to be mean, but this is pretty childish behavior. Come on man.” (diff); I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of users who'd enjoy to discuss with it, but I have to admit I'm not one of them.
Eventually, should I care about the fact that some files have been unilaterally declared superseded? I don't think that stating a file as other version rather than superseding one does any harm to one or the other, whereas it would be difficult to assert the opposite while claiming to remain neutral.
Anyway I'm also here now because the subject of the decategorisation mentioned above has already been addressed in this request, among other facts, and although that's easy to fix it still hasn't been done, suggesting that the files are bound to be left as is
Of course I won't act on this for I've been warned not to edit-warring. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There. I fixed the decategorisation issue.
Also, "unilateral decision", "unilaterally declared superseded"
It's kind of hard not to make a "unilateral decision" when other people refuse to talk to you about the issue and just continue edit warring. OddHerring (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Come on man” Let's keep neutral, some users may find that other files supersed yours, thus filling these as other version instead of superseding is fine for everyone. It's the same in the case some user declares your own fies superseded.. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree. @OddHerring please change "superseded" to "other version" and let the end project decide which version they prefer to use. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 16:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? My version is more accurate. OddHerring (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main point in heraldry is the blazonning, any design can be chosen without making the arms invalid. Thus, other versions are as valid as yours, whatever the color shades chosen or the eagle's design. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment by Alachuckthebuck: Reminder to stay civil and that rather than edit warring over versions, just create new ones. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If your version is "more accurate" then it's incumbent upon you to convince the end projects of such. "superseded" is not appropriate here, when your version in fact, does not, supersede the others Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remjeud, Chrymedia, and mass copyvios

[edit]

Once again reporting the upload of a massive number of copyvios in the Indian Christian subject area. Please review the many copyright violations and intentionally false licensing tags on Remjeud's edits. Relatedly, Chrymedia has uploaded further copyvios and returned the same pool of Syro-Malabar photos previously uploaded by Sleevachan-type socks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please file this at com:RFCU. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 02:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:NoonIcarus and User:WMrapids interaction ban

[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
After reviewing the situation, I have decided to indefinitely block NoonIcarus and impose a two-way interaction ban between WMrapids and NoonIcarus. Despite prior sanctions (blocks, bans) on other projects, NoonIcarus has continued to engage in disruptive behavior, including targeting WMrapids in ways that could reasonably be interpreted as cross-wiki hounding. This aligns with concerns raised during the ArbCom case and subsequent sanctions on other projects. Similar patterns of antagonistic behavior from NoonIcarus across Wikimedia projects have been pointed out, too. Their interactions here suggest an inability or unwillingness to adapt to collaborative norms. The history between the two users, including ArbCom cases and cross-wiki disputes, demonstrates that their interactions are rarely productive and frequently disruptive. The interaction ban will prevent further conflicts here on Commons between both users, in the event that NoonIcarus is unblocked. In that event, there is ample opportunity for both users to work constructively in separate areas here on Commons. The most important reason that motivated me to take action without further discussion is that this behavior has been repeated in other wikis resulting in similar sanctions. --Bedivere (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! To avoid further conflict and disruption with users on the project, I would like to propose an interaction ban for NoonIcarus and I. This has already been successfully instituted on English and Spanish Wikipedia following lengthy disputes. Thank you! WMrapids (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment WMrapids is making this request after I tagged two of their copyvios: File:Tren de Aragua in Aurora, Colorado.png and File:Tren de Aragua jewelry store.png, not to mention several other issues. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As NoonIcarus has said themselves, the copyright issue is unclear (for example: File:Shooting of Brian Thompson CCTV frame 01.png) and the images were uploaded in good faith. I do not come to Commons to perform copyright violations or participate in drama, I come to contribute. NoonIcarus has made this difficult due to their consistent crosswiki hounding. It would be best for everyone if we can end this with an interaction ban for us both so that we may get on with our contributions.--WMrapids (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus: certainly not a clearcut case, and if you are under an interaction ban with this user on other wikis, you probably should have stayed out of this. It is certainly not the sort of speedy deletion you tagged it as being.
Given that, and that WMrapids has requested that the interaction ban be extended to Commons, I support an interaction ban. Is there any admin who disagrees? - Jmabel ! talk 22:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment For what it's worth, I apologize if the speedy deletion tag was not the best alternative. I did look into Threshold of originality#Pre-positioned recording devices and Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States#Colorado before tagging, and did look like copyvios based on reverse search, as Túrelio mentioned [9] --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If more context is needed, WMrapids is currently indefinitely banned in the English Wikipedia for sockpuppettering, and is currently banned from creating pages in the Spanish Wikipedia (CentralAuth). The first interaction restriction was enacted before this was discovered, and this should be a clue of the cross-wiki disruptive editing I'm referring to.
Besides all of that, these were not the first copyvios uploaded by WMrapids. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As what Jmabel said above, nothing is ever clearcut with NoonIcarus. The sockpuppet issue was a misunderstanding as I created a second account was created for privacy. Though I appealed, I still was accepting of the ban because I was wrong. As for the page creation sanction on Spanish Wikipedia, it occurred because my Spanish writing is admittedly not as good as I thought it was. This was amicably cleared up with the administrator who created the sanction, so no real harm there.
The reason I am on Spanish Wikipedia anyway is mainly so I can continue my contributions in some way while focusing on local topics. I have been doing this mainly with Commons (see articles: Fennville, Manlius, New Richmond Bridge, Lansing, Corewell Health, etc.) However, I also have an interest in Latin America and if I make edits that NoonIcarus doesn't agree with, they will hound me. Due to NoonIcarus' heavy bias and dishonest edit summaries regarding Latin American political topics on English Wikipedia, they were indefinitely banned from editing the topic by the Wikipedia Community.
All I was asking for is a simple interaction ban since I didn't want to go out into the weeds with this (my discussions can be quite lengthy), but I have to respond to accusations about my character. While I am certainly not perfect (especially not with my Spanish...), I have always edited with good faith and will continue to do so. The same cannot be said about NoonIcarus. Since I no longer can assume good faith with them, I am sincerely asking for a simple interaction ban between us and nothing more. Thank you. WMrapids (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make some clarifications left out again: WMrapids used more than two accounts and the topic restriction against me precisely was requested by them and before this was uncovered, not because of the reasons they allege.
They have repeatedly uploaded unreferenced and often controversial content, something that has continued in Commons. The most recent example is this map: File:Map of Tren de Aragua in the United States.svg, based on this map made by the Heritage Foundation: TDA Activity Monitor. They cite sources for 10 states, but the rest are unreferenced, more than half of them.
An interaction restriction would certainly prevent mudslinging from them, but the request is a way to seek these changes to remain unchecked. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with Jmabel on that issue. These are not cut-and-dried cases as some CCTV footage is PD in the US as some cases the camera is not operated by a human, and there was no specific intent to video an image. But if there is someone controlling the camera, it would be copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jmabel and Abzeronow: I'm not opposed to an interaction ban, but I'm leaning towards a long block - maybe an indefinite block - for NoonIcarus being a better option. WMrapids and NoonIcarus have such an ugly history that they were the subject of an ArbCom case that resulted in an interaction ban between the two (among other sanctions), and then they come here to another project and target WMrapids's uploads? Excuse me? Yes, Commons is not Wikipedia, and Commons has a reputation as being a place that users banned from other projects go to show that they can be constructive editors, but this is quite the opposite of that. I have no patience for what NoonIcarus looks to be doing. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what @The Squirrel Conspiracy is concerned about, but I'm leaning towards trying a 2 way iban, that will be enforced with indefinite blocks if need be. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 03:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, although I'm not opposed to blocking NoonIcarus. Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     NOTE: ARBCOM case about these two
    TLDR:
    • 2-way IBAN
    • WMrapids was CU-blocked during the case,
    • WMrapids then got their block upgraded to arbcom block.
    • NoonIcarus got topic banned by the community from Latin American politics before the case.
    I honestly wouldn't mind if we started inforcing EN-wiki Ibans. Commons is big enough for everyone to get along and stay away from ANI ANU
    All the Best -- Chuck Talk 05:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note that WMrapids was also topic banned in the ArbCom decision, on top of the indefinite block.
I have yet to appeal my topic restriction based on the ArbCom findings, but I'm too burnt out of the discussions. I would only ask to take into account my contributions in Commons when considering a decision. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support iban and  Support block for NoonIcarus. I am not an admin. on any project. I have long complained of NoonICarusus's (fka Jamez42's) behavior on en.Wikipedia (including mentioning edits on es.Wikipedia) up until the ArbCom proceeding mentioned, which I participated in. I had hoped the resolution of the ArbCom would have been enough for NoonIcarus to get the message to cool such behavior. But instead, he repeats the same behavior with WMRapids on es.Wikipedia--gets an interaction ban there--and now again on WikiCommons. A stronger message is necessary that he be respectful of Wikipedia/Wikimedia norms.-David Tornheim (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Question @David Tornheim: I see that you didn't edit in Commons for over four years until now. Could you kindly mention how did you learn about this thread? Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes look at your contributions to see if you are repeating your old behaviors. Months ago, I considered reporting you on en.Wiki for skirting your topic ban by welcoming new users who made an edit supporting a specific political view in Latin American politics, but decided against it. After I uploaded an image to WikiCommons, I looked at your contribs here and was shocked to see you are doing the same thing against WMRapids as before and had just gotten in trouble for it on es.Wiki too. Quite troubling.David Tornheim (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you're repeating the same behavior you're criticizing about me, while being lenient on WMrapids' abuse of multiple accounts, blocks and cross-wiki behavior (including the publication of false information). I have to wonder what do you think a block would accomplish that an interaction restriction wouldn't, and have to say that I'm worried about possible canvassing since said upload took place less than an hour before your comment here. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NoonIcarus, all I asked for and still only ask for is an interaction ban. Making accusations of canvassing is serious and not helpful. I’m doing my best to start fresh and move on with my contributions. Please do the same with me. WMrapids (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus: forgive me if I missed something above, but are you willing to agree to a mutual interaction ban or not? - Jmabel ! talk 23:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question should be whether to consider the circumstances in other projects or the ones here in Commons, and in the case of the latter what would the restriction seek to address that other venues haven't.
My main concerns with WMrapids have been the upload of poorly referenced information and edit warring. The issues about sourcing in two files (File:Map of Tren de Aragua in the United States.svg and File:Tren de Aragua presence in the Americas.svg) are already reflected with {{factual accuracy}} tags, and the copyright status of the two others is being handled in this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tren de Aragua in Aurora, Colorado.png.
WMrapids and I have had few interactions in Commons, dating back already to at least a year ago, and despite our editorial differences they have been addressed in the appropriate venues, namely the file talk pages.
Whatever the case is, I want to stress my support towards constructive dialogue. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NoonIcarus, I'm not trying to be rude at all, but your answer to Jmabel's question still seems to be unclear. We have had many attempts at "constructive dialogue" for almost two years now and in two different projects, third parties have determined that it is best that we don't interact.
On Commons specifically:
  • We edit warred about the Guarimba category while we simultaneously had a third party resolve a debate we had.
  • I have seen you follow and edit files I have created on Commons before we have had this most recent dispute.
  • You have continuously moved the goalposts regarding your rationale to delete and tag my work in maps I uploaded:
    • In this process, you may have violated COM:OVERWRITE when you significantly modified my work multiple times in an upload war [10][11] to support your opinion of what my work should look like.
    • After this didn't stick, you demanded more sources, which I provided.
    • After I provided dozens of sources, you moved the goalposts again and inaccurately claimed that for my map, that there were "sources for 10 states, but the rest are unreferenced". I responded again with showing the already exisiting Newsweek and TDA Monitor sources and detailing which individual states are covered by their maps.
    • You move the posts again and inaccurately say "Newsweek cites The New York Post ... the TDA Activity Monitor, which was produced by the Heritage Foundation, an unreliable source". The Newsweek map does not cite any source and seems to be Newsweek's own creation while TDA Activity Monitor does not list the Heritage Foundation as a source anywhere. This is not the first time you provided inaccurate information regarding this dispute, which makes this look like intentional manipulation and not accidental, which is detrimental towards any good faith.
    • Finally, after I responded to the previous point and have been in the process of writing this, you responded minutes later randomly posting "en:WP:RS/P", showing just how close you are monitoring this situation and how you ignored my response (that the New York Post nor the Heritage Foundation are used as sources).
So while I have done my best to assume good faith through all of this and have provided more and more sources to appease your ever changing demands, "constructive dialogue" between us typically results in an IBAN. You have kept me on my toes any time I perform an edit and you seem to be on your own to monitor my edits, presenting yourself as being the only one to monitor my behavior. Given all of this, I sincerely believe that an IBAN is best for the both of us so we can perform calm, healthy edits without being a burden to others.
So, can you please agree to an interaction ban? WMrapids (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Usuarioeditor9

[edit]

The user Usuarioeditor9 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) received a final warning for repeatedly uploading files with copyvio on December 15, 2021. The user subsequently continued to upload files with copyvio, a few of which have since been deleted. (For example 1, 2, 3, 4, etc) On November 9, 2022, the user deleted messages from their talk page (including the warning). Much of the remaining files from this user (related to footballers) are small and low-resolution files, suggesting that they might be screenshots and clippings. (For example 1, 2, 3, 4 5, etc) --Ovruni (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There is no recent edits, so a block may not be useful, but many of their uploads are indeed suspicious, so Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Usuarioeditor9. There are probably more suspicious uploads, and many useless ones, which should also be deleted. Yann (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nelsito Maduro

[edit]

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

Can someone please tell Nelsito Maduro to behave properly? For merely nominating one of their articles for copyright, they have made several attacks against me, including accusing me of socking under two other user accounts [12] in the English Wiki, one being a veteran admin, who recently blocked them in the English Wiki for being disruptive [13]. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Indef and Revdel All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alachuckthebuck: Please don't use checkmarks in admin threads except to indicate something is done. Admins might see that and think that you blocked them and revdeled, and skip over this.  Support would be better. Thanks! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that! All the Best -- Chuck Talk 21:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I deleted 2 uploads by Nelsito Maduro and warned them. Yann (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yann! HistoryofIran (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sangeeth Manoj Kumar R

[edit]

User talk:Sangeeth Manoj Kumar R he is continueing copyvio. he before blocked couple of times. for now, we need 3 or 6 months. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 6 months, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Kamenysloup

[edit]

User talk:Kamenysloup multiple copyvio. need block. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 21:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Already warned, and no upload after that. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=File%3AAg+SWT.jpg&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist check this. he uploaded this copyvio after last warning. please block him. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Ah yes, right, blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cswolley327

[edit]

Uploading a series of bathroom nudes that look like "hidden camera" type images. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support delete as G3, and leaving a note on talk page. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done VOA, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=971506061"