Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

Archives
21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Note

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

Copyvios By User:Wikimskhl[edit]

Wikimskhl (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

User has uploaded multiple copyvios after final warning. Alachuckthebuck (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The current videos have a free license on YT, but it may not be valid. Yann (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support block and delete all uploads. Looks like license laundering. --Drakosh (talk) 05:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose More precisely, only the current two videos were uploaded after the final warning. Both have free licenses. Imo user shouldn't be blocked just for possible license laundering. 0x0a (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. User is warned, copyvios deleted. It seems that the user starts to understand something. Next time block. Taivo (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:林高志[edit]

The user upload multiple nearly-identical photos of the same subject. Judging from his upload log and his contributions I can't help but thinking that he just blindly uploaded photos. I genuinely think that he needs a mentor or someone with experience to help him learn how to understand COM:HOST and maybe filter what he uploading a bit better.--125.230.87.22 11:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any administrative action, if you think motives are too similar, take them through deletion process as was done in the past for nearly identical photos uploaded from Flickr or those shots of Earth's terrain from the ISS. A09 (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done User hasn't been active for almost a year so there's no point in any admin action. I did nominate around 130 of their most recent 4,000 uploads for deletion for FoP reasons though. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giaben12[edit]

Giaben12 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Upload thumb size photos of businesspeople without any META data. Me an other users have flagged as possible copyvio. Pierre cb (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Files deleted. Final warning given Bedivere (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:BMarGlines[edit]

Uploading files as CC0 when they're not CC0; some files are actually copyright violations Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Leaning oppose on any admin actions Seems like an honest mistake. The files are all fine under {{Pd-textlogo}}, and the ones that haven't already been adjusted have been changed accordingly. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to comment the same. I've reviewed their uploads and they're mostly fine, except some whose shading or design makes me wonder if they're PD. Please tag whatever you think it's a copyvio and it will be reviewed. This is a very generic request. Bedivere (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mvcg66b3r did tag three as copyvios but I declined them. Mvcg66b3r should feel free to open regular DRs for those if they disagree though. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done because  No action at the moment is warranted per above. ─ Aafī (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Over on Wikipedia, DMA180guy and Sammi Brie are saying some of BMarGlines' uploads are fake, particularly these:

I have nominated these files for deletion. These logos aren't even on Logopedia. Maybe you should look into BMarGlines' behavior. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with these logos. I've inspected a couple and they are actually the same or a very close depiction (avoiding copyrighted elements such as that of WVLT). These POINT-y requests for deletion are disrupting (I am closing some) and I advise you to stop this behaviour. Take this as a warning. Bedivere (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere: They should at least have a source besides the call signs of the television channels. Otherwise I'd air on the side of deleting them since there's no way to verify they are real and someone can't just say without evidence that the logo came from the television channel. Like with File:WSAW TV 2023.svg the source is NewsChannel 7 and the author is Gray Television. I assume neither of those are the uploader. So they had to have gotten the logo from somewhere and there's no reason not to provide a source to wherever that was. Otherwise the file should just be deleted along with the others. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked each of the logos and they are exactly the same as each of the channels have them published on their websites, or as close as they can be. I don't see a real reason to delete them. The nominator falsely says theyve been uploaded as CC0 (they haven't) and then goes to claim these are false, when a simple Google search proves otherwise. The nominator also states "per X", per "Y" but that's not a valid reason for deletion. The information can be improved on each file, for sure, and that's @BMarGlines: ' work, but these are real logos and the reason to nominate them in the first place is not right. Bedivere (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a couple of them and couldn't find anything at all similar to the ones I researched. Like with File:KXJB KX4.svg, there isn't a logo that's at all comparable to it. At least from what I can tell. The same goes for a couple of others. In the slightest the uploader shouldn't be claiming the logos author is "Hoak Media" if it's different from original to make uncopyrighted. Otherwise can you put links to the originals in the file descriptions since your saying they are "exactly the same as each of the channels have them published on their websites" and ask the uploader to do the same from now on? Or again, the files should just be deleted.
Really not to tell how do your job, but you should have waited until there was more discussion about it and the sources/authors were fixed before closing the DRs. It's not that unsually to nominate questionable logos for deletion. Nor is there anything wrong with asking the uploader to provide more information about where they got the files from as part of that process. So there was zero reason to close the deletion requests that quickly or without giving other people time to comment. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the uploader should be more dilligent by providing proper information about the logos. But in my searches I found the logos and thought the requests to be pointless. For instance, the logo you mention is nearly the same as found here. I can reopen the discussions if you wish, no problem with that, but I maintain the position that these were made in bad faith. Bedivere (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original from the video has the CBS logo and doesn't say "Valley News Live." Plus it's from a YouTube video. You'd have to agree that a completely different logo from a YouTube video exactly the same as each of the channels have them published on their websites" like you were claiming. So do you have a link to the exact logo from KXJB KX4's website or not? Also, while I can understand "cleaning up" a logo to remove copyrighted elements, the CBS logo is composed of basic shapes, which aren't copyrighted. Plus there's no "valley News Live" in the original either. So the claim that the changes are simply to avoid copyrighted elements is clearly spurious. Anyway, I'm not going to argue over minor trifles, but it would be nice if you reopened the DRs since the whole thing clearly wasn't as clean cut as your making it out to be. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1] It's the exact same logo. There goes the official website. Bedivere (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, minus the 'CBS Eye' which there was no reason to remove since it's not copyrighted. Come on Bedivere, that's like saying File:Walt Disney Pictures text logo.svg and this are the exact same thing. It's not like I even care. Except that again for like the 3rd time the uploader shouldn't be saying the logo came from KX4/VNL or that the source is "Hoak Media" when it's heavily modified and clearly made by the uploader, not the television channel itself. I guess I could just meet you half way and blank the source and author fields on all the files if your not willing to renominate them for deletion. You think that would be a reasonable compromise or do you have a better way to fix the issue? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reopened the discussion. I don't have a strong opinion on the issue and don't really care if these get deleted, but I don't think not being an exact representation of the logo is grounds for deletion Bedivere (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It should be if the uploader intentionally misrepresents who created the logo or where it came from. And its not like they have addressed this or fixed anything either. So there's no reason to give them benefit of the doubt. We'll have to agree to disagree though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me reset a bit with some context for the non-topic editors here. w:Gray Television owns lots of local TV stations in the US. Recently, they've gone through and removed the NBC peacock from their NBC affiliates (to promote local branding). They haven't done this with the CBS affiliates, and certainly not at w:KPHO-TV. That's where I drew the line, reverted two edits, and the whole thing started falling apart. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malttew9983[edit]

Malttew9983 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  The user insists on uploading logos and flags of political parties with false licenses (they exceed the COM:TOO in many cases), he has already been warned various times but does not seem to understand. Taichi (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those under TOO should be relicensed too. A09 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyvios By User:AHMSAbdelwahab[edit]

AHMSAbdelwahab (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

This user's only uploads are copyvios of company logos from google. 46 of them. Alachuckthebuck (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see some logos are too simple to be copyrighted, but the sourcing is troublesome. Some are obvious copyright violations. I will delete those that are obvious but I suggest you to nominate the others. I will add a warning. Bedivere (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping with the cleanup! Should we clean up the pd-text logos, or just go with deletion? Alachuckthebuck (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should be cleaned up, but if there are superior versions (SVG for instance), these should just be deleted. Bedivere (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the size of these companies, we definitely have better copies. All his uploads have been nominated for deletion as copyvios. Alachuckthebuck (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted a couple more. Will leave the others (all PD-textlogo) for another admin to handle. Bedivere (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have they been tagged already, or should I go and tag them? Alachuckthebuck (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are all tagged. I would prefer if you could nominate them for deletion instead of requesting speedy deletion as copyright violations, which isn't clear they are. Bedivere (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Fixing, first time using VFC. Alachuckthebuck (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted a couple using the speedy deletion criteria F8. It's time consuming, though. The uploader @AHMSAdbdelwa should be fixing up the information, instead of us. But some of their uploads may be useful. I would not blame an admin deleting all of their uploads. Bedivere (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still haven't done the move, and I'm going to keep the speedy tags for now, I need to add the ajax quickdelete (www) rationale to VFC. Alachuckthebuck (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Government of India (PO)[edit]

I'm concerned about the user name. Their user page says "Hi This GoI PO". And although it appears most of their uploads are ok, the latest one, which I've nominated for deletion, is from X. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked as per COM:IU. Yann (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grimes5[edit]

Grimes5 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

This account has uploaded more than 300 svg files in the last 10 days, which are mostly circles or the same image of musical notes. Many also have nonsense file names. I'm not really sure what the purpose of these uploads are and I'm opening this discussion so that an admin can look into this account.

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Grimes5, which nominated the first 10 uploads for deletion. Johnj1995 (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted all the files (took a few minutes on VFC). As to what is going on your guess is as good as mine. Spambot? Botched batch upload? Coufused user? All I can say is the contributions aren't constructive and I've given a warning. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 19:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some of the files they edited they seem to be related to User:Grimes2 who was blocked on enwiki for random disruptive editing. Not sure what's going on here. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 19:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're here to help. Blocked indefinitely. Bedivere (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I declined unblock request. I would unblock if normal acknowledgment of mistake and apology. Taivo (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Declined again. Yann (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Mulenda[edit]

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

Continued to upload inappropriate files despite a 1-month block by Yann on Jan 29, 2024. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The last deleted file (File:Etienne Kas.jpg) is not proved to be a copyright violation, as the FB picture is not the source, but rather a derivative work of this picture. However it may be out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=862542377"