Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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.

User has previously been blocked for copyvio in December ([1]), was reported again in January ([2]), they have plenty of warnings and notices on their talk page going back to 2022 ([3]), and they were indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia on 22 June for repeated copyvios there ([4]). Since then (i.e. even since 22 June), they've continued to mass-upload images with dubious licensing information, all of which are clearly grabbed from somewhere on the web. (They're likely also evading their Wikipedia block through IP edits which are adding some of these files to Wikipedia; see evidence here.)

In the recent uploads, the source is labeled "pinterest" (without a link), author is claimed to be "unknown", and license is tagged as PD-Egypt, but no evidence is provided to support any of this. Examples include: File:Ayman Younes (Zamalek SC).jpg, File:Zamalek - Cairo (1972).jpg, File:Farouk Gaafar 1981.jpg, File:Ashraf Kasem (1984).jpg, etc. Even if the stated dates of the photos are correct (no obvious way to confirm this), my reading of PD-Egypt is that they are still too recent to be in PD in the United States and thus do not belong on Commons.

Some of their older uploads – images of old actors and movie posters, etc – are tagged as PD, but they've put themselves as "author" and the "source" appears to be their own Flickr account (Crimson2022 Alfred), which is merely doing the same thing as their Commons account. At best, the author attribution is wrong, and at worse, it's impossible once again to confirm the copyright status of the original work. Examples: File:Abdel Halim Hafez.jpg, File:Bahiga Hafez.jpg, File:Kham El-Khalili (1976).jpg (this one even has a mysterious watermark in the upper right corner), etc.

The user has 200+ uploads, so I don't have the capacity to investigate, tag, and/or nominate for deletion all their problematic uploads, but this looks like a pattern of long-term ignorance of Commons:Licensing. R Prazeres (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There are some problematic uploads, but the information provided is better than by many other users. Yann (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the latest, e.g. here and here, they uploaded screenshots from Youtube videos with no evidence of permission. The information they provide has no bearing on demonstrating compatible licensing. R Prazeres (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Blocked for a month (2nd block), all recent copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

メイド理世 (talk · contribs) uploaded lots of copyright protected content, see their talk page. After I tag this photo, File:Nanjing, 1 July 2024 (109).jpg, they cropped out the non-copyvio one and just keep the copyvio character.
Per their discussion on Commons:Deletion_requests/File:28码脚型飞机杯（右脚）_(cropped).jpg, Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:後藤ひとり.jpg,_File:山田リョウ、後藤ひとり.jpg,_File:山田リョウ.jpg and current behaviour, I strictly suspect this one is clearly CIR, both for using English and learning about copyright laws. Lemonaka (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Strong oppose, This cropped image is child pornography toys, 2. there no freedom of panorama of 2D works in china. 3. I am like the anonymous shenzhen photographers? 4. why rollbacking this empty kept category??? I does not speak the english language, i can speak chinese, fuck great firewall (GFW) banned this website. メイド理世 (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

以后这样我不会在这里上传2D作品了。 メイド理世 (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann they cleaned their talk pages to avoid being found they have been warned a lot. Please take action. Lemonaka (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

反正没事了，移动在用户讨论存档了。 メイド理世 (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before I left the above comment, you directly removed your talk page notice, instead of archiving them. After I reported, you move it to your archive. Lemonaka (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think removing talk page notices are particularly egregious offences, but they can be a sign that the user is unwilling to accept their mistakes. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Persistent uploader of obvious and apparent copyright violation. Ignores warnings. Jcb (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I blocked this user about uploading files. Hopefully they will respond to warnings. Yann (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Paulsmith5752 that user is uploading nude images and he says "I uploaded it by mistake". and that last image is about genital of child and he said again "I uploaded it by mistake". i dont believe he did it by mistake. he is doing disruptive editing, please give him a block and at least a warning please. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 16:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Blocked as VOA, obviously NOTHERE. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user uploaded a [sfw] image of what they claimed was a fetishistic sex toy molded from a child’s body. They later tried to walk back on their claims and said they weren’t sure it was based on a real child and bought it for non-prurient reasons but it’s incredibly disturbing that they would mention such things in the first place. Now I might’ve (barely) let this slide as the behavior of a well-meaning eccentric who doesn’t speak good English but they have been blocked on three other wikis for disruption. I don’t think their unremarkable positive contributions justify tolerance of a known problem user who uploads appalling content that severely harms the reputation of Commons. Dronebogus (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the most passive precaution must be to put this user on our watchlist. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 15:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RosaryTeam (talk · contribs) is using Commons to advertise their store for AI generated imagery. They will also revert any edit that adds the template {{PD-algorithm}} and Category:AI images generated by unidentified software to their images. Trooper57 (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trooper57: looks like you did not notify them of this discussion on their talk page. I will do that for you. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

because it is not the case of algorithm generated, I have the Adobe InDesign vector files. RosaryTeam (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upload copyvios after warning, with different file name. See File:Shirley pepe 1.png and deleted File:La shirley el pepe.jpg (deleted twice) Regards!! Ezarateesteban 21:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezarate: Please remember to notify the user next time as per the instructions at the top of this page – I've done it for you this time. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon203 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Evidence shows that the user intentionally violated COM:FNC. Unfortunately, TimWu007 already accepted his request and moved to new title. See: [5]. Given that Solomon203 recent contributions have made unnecessary requests for file-renaming most of which have been denied, I recommend that you temporarily stop any requests until you have a good understanding of COM:FNC.--111.253.26.42 08:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@111.253.26.42, did you notice the first line of the Notes on top of this page, "Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first."? --Túrelio (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user is obviously Kai3952. --Solomon203 (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Was the original name good enough? Probably (unless I'm missing something). Is there any grounds for admin action? No. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keylansual3882 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

The user uploads the same files again (political flags under fair use) after warnings. Taichi (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 2 week block. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This IP is vandalasing Commons. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Blocked for 3 days. If they come back and continue to vandalize, a much longer block is in order. - Jmabel ! talk 22:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lalchhanhima hmar Zote (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

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

Sock trying to avoid block, see Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Duhzuala.Jonteemil (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Both indef blocked. Bedivere (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, please also block Lalchhanhima zote hmar as yet another sock. Jonteemil (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now also Malsawmdawngzeli. Jonteemil (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This user frequently submits the Categories for discussion (COM:CFD), but he/she seems mistakenly think that CFDs are the place for one-sided self-assertion and deletion games, and seems severely lack the efforts for sincear discussion. Even if answers are given to his/her initial questions, he/she almost always ignoring it, and repeats the same assertions and the same questions over and over again, exhausting the discussion and ultimately trying to only pass his/her own assertions. We believe that the current situation, in which a person with problematic discussion skills frequently submit COM:CFD and try to ignore dialog, is a hindrance to the autonomy of the community, so it requires appropriate guidance.

Case 1. Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/07/Category:Market exploration shops
Discussion about the purpose of the category and the addition of short description. Even the answer with reliable source and its English translation are given in intial phase, he/she didn't want to accept it, and prolonged the discussion by repeating baseless fantasies.

Case 2: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/12/Category:Services (economics)
Based on the lesson learned from avobe Case 1, I asked this user if he/she would carefully read the other user's answer and discuss the issue in good faith, because it is an etiquette expected of everyone taking part in the discussion. However he/she avoid to respond to it, instead he/she posted his/her grievances on my talk page.

Case 3: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Event spaces (venues)
Newest case in this week. While we were discussing the needs of a category without restriction of place as an extension of an existing category (limited to buildings/facilities), this user made false statements as if he/she have already discussed it on the RfD on the above existing category, and repeate the same assertion and the same question repeatedly to a question that has already been answered. In my eyes, he/she has not enough skills to discuss with other users.

I know the above discussion style is popular with some in Generation Z, but I've already been experiencing that type of argument destruction for about 30 years and am long tired of it, so I don't want to deal with this type of time wasting.　--Clusternote (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wrong with asking for a description of what a Commons category should include? I don't think it was clear at the start of the discussion for any of the above three? Ideally, when creating a new category, you would have taken care of that. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's important to provide definitions and rationales when creating categories. I prefer to provide reliable sources and relevant Wikipedia articles as evidence in this regard, and take other measures when that isn't possible. --Clusternote (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Clusternote, but CfD is precisely the place to discuss a category, and it is entirely correct to bring a category to CfD if its scope is unclear. I'd consider JopkeB to be among (at most) the few dozen best contributors to Commons in capacities other than just taking and uploading pictures. You are basically asking us to censure someone for doing things right and improving Commons. And as for your generational remark, I was born in 1954. - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media archives such as Wikimedia Commons tend to be folksonomy-oriented, and the resulting cluttered categories need to be organized; and on Wikimedia Commons where the community consensuses are respected, debates are inevitable. However, his/her argumentative skills, in which he/she ignores other user's opinions and pushes his own argument, are incompatible with a folksonomy-driven culture, and it may cause of hindrance to further development of Wikimedia Commons. His/her habit of strong-arming others and never admitting to errors in judgment as a result of his/her disregard for others' opinions needs to be corrected. The habit of ignoring the opinions of others, persistently pushing own-opinions, and never admitting the error on own opinions, are wrong, and needs to be corrected. --Clusternote (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will add, I cannot recall ever seeing an uncivil comment from JopkeB, in which respect they are probably better at this than I am myself, and I don't think my conduct is usually seen as problematic. If you have an example of such a comment, please provide the appropriate diff. (Also, I literally don't know anyone who is more careful to try to spell out an apparent consensus before presuming one exists.)- Jmabel ! talk 19:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Cases 1-3 above, already I've provided specific examples of his problematic behavior. If you requested the detailed line-by-line diffs of problematic post, I will presented it short after. --Clusternote (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case 1:

• 2023-07-09 12:06 post by JopkeB: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2023/07/Category:Market_exploration_shops&diff=prev&oldid=781690305

Just before this post, I've post a reliable source and summary, and the initial problem had been resolved. However, he/she did not understand its importance, and repeatedly proposed definitions that contradicted the sources, prolonging the discussion.

Case 2:

• 2023-12-12 09:16 post by me: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2023/12/Category:Services_(economics)&diff=prev&oldid=830118113

In the above Case 1, his/her problematic behaviour became clear (Ignoring or not understanding other users' posts, and persistently pushing clearly incorrect opinion), so I tried to confirm that he/she would observe the general etiquette of discussion that is required for all discussion participants in general, before the discussion.

• 2023-12-12 post by JopkeB: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clusternote&diff=prev&oldid=830174114

He/she ignored the above confirmation without realizing that he/she had no choice but to answer Yes, and exploded with frustration on the my talk page.
In general, it is impossible to debate with users who disregard the minimum etiquette of discussion.

Case 3 will be post later, because it will be slightly long. --Clusternote (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems with the discussion style of JopkeB in these examples. The suggetion to shorten the description in Case 1 is a valid suggestion, whether you like it or not. Your suggestion for the description certainly works, but this doesn't mean it can't be improved upon and the best time to try and improve it is during these kind of discussions. In Case 2 I only see a normal suggestion to discuss and possibly merge categories, to which you respond with a borderline civil question - which leads to JopkeB asking you very civilly on your talkpage to explain in more detail what behavior of them you find problematic. Again, your description of his valid question as "explodes with frustration" could be called uncivil, if anything. Kritzolina (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Clusternote: I don't have an issue with JopkeB in general, nor in the CfD to which you pointed. They may lack perfection, though don't we all.

The category descriptions should be as short as reasonably possible, and I would point you to those at Wikidata for items. If you want to get into a long detailed discussion and explainer, then put it onto the talk page of the category and point to it. References would belong on the talk page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked by this accusation. I am not aware of any harm. Thanks a lot, @Jmabel, Enhancing999, Kritzolina, and Billinghurst: for standing up for me and for the compliments. I couldn't have done my own defense any better.
For me only some personal remarks remain:

• I was born several decades before Generation Z. But even if a person who is part of this generation (or any other) has a discussion style someone else does not like, then we have to deal with that style. Unless the person is showing improper/uncivil behavior (like name-calling, discrimination, intimidation, making negative remarks about a person instead of talking about the content), everybody may discuss the way (s)he likes. If you do not agree with a statement, summary, conclusion or proposal, just say so and make a better one or propose a correction.
• I prefer to be referred to as she/her.

--JopkeB (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Luchadorio (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

User uploaded numerous insignias of Ukrainian cities. All of the files were licensed as Russian official insignias. In some cases, El Luchadorio named files improperly, so there is no clear indication that images depict insignias under Russian military occupation. Those can be mistakenly used as Ukrainian insignias. In other cases, images depict official Ukrainian insignias with no clear explanation of how those became Russian insignias. For example, today user uploaded file, which duplicates original Ukrainian flag, and now Ukrainian government website listed as a source for Russian official insignia. User also tried to replace license template for already existing files. Yesterday I talked to user about the issue, but new upload indicates that problem remains. Siradan (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll change the license. El Luchadorio (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is fixed. El Luchadorio (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But now File:Flag of Selidovo.svg duplicates original file File:Флаг Селидово.svg. Moreover, I checked the source, which you enlisted for your file, and it depicts a different flag. Siradan (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you did no changes for files like File:Flag of Soledar.svg Siradan (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Soledar flag is not used in articles. OK, I'll rewrite the selidovo flag, according to the source. El Luchadorio (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if uploaded files are used anywhere at the moment. As long as files remain on the platform, descriptions (especially licenses) must be correct. Siradan (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for fellow administrators that I have flagged for the third time to the user OperationSakura6144 that their actions in requesting speedy deletion of redirects and unexact duplicates is out of scope. This person does not engage in questions or seeking assistance. I have two options if they continue, either to block, or to inhibit their use of certain templates. This is among either category moves that seem occasionally to occur without community consultation. FYI @Túrelio: who has been servicing some of this user's requests.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a longer block than their previous ones Bedivere (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, we have a bit of history here, in that this is not the first time I have nominated poorly made cartoon porn either created or uploaded by this user for deletion Last time it was all deleted and I had hoped they wouldn't do it again, but it turned out they have been. That really neither here nor there, just some background. Today I nominated some more recent items, and I made a deliberate decision to nominate them individually, so each would be discussed on its own merits. Dronebogus decided to override me and retroactively bundle them all together on discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sanny and Tess orgasming 2.png. Is that ok? It feels to me like it is not ok. Just Step Sideways (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to point out one of the files they nominated is COM:INUSE on two sites, as well as their deliberately obnoxious response to a serious inquiry I made about off-wiki canvassing. Dronebogus (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]