Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

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-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
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}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~16
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-03: ~55

Other:

• Duplicates: ~46
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~0
• Other speedy deletions: ~8
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~0
• Undeletion requests: ~8

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~51
• Interface admin: ~17
• Technical: ~2
• Template protection: ~35
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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.

Bull-Doser

Blocked for uploading any content, as per discussion below. Yann (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bull-Doser (talk · contribs)

Uploaded copyvio File:Billy Woods au Ritz PDB — 1.png after final warning. 172.59.211.202 00:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

That was actually MY photo! It ain't no copyvio! I used my iPhone X to do it! I used the screenshot subject to crop after my Ritz PDB photos! -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bull-Doser: You would have done well to say something at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Billy Woods au Ritz PDB — 1.png during the 12 days it was open. And you might want to make an undeletion request. - Jmabel ! talk 03:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bull-Doser: What about File:Annika Chambers.jpg? 108.58.166.134 11:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to have the administrators examine the user's work regarding c:Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Canada. Many pictures illustrating people show signs of having being taken surreptitiously, or were notably taken that way, while under Quebec law, a photographer can take photographs in public places but may not publish the picture unless permission has been obtained from the subject. Other examples of candid photos include File:Rachel Therrien au Bourgie.jpg, File:Marie-Lyne Joncas dehors les studios Bell Média radio Montréal.jpg, File:Jocelyne Robert (Salon du livre Montréal 2015).jpg, File:Suzie LeBlanc chez la salle Bourgie de la MBAM.jpg, File:Jean-Michel Anctil chez le Monte Carlo à Charlemagne.jpg, File:Isabelle Cyr chez la cabaret Lion D'Or.jpg, File:François Maranda dehors les studios de CIME-FM.JPG, File:Viviane Audet au La Sala Rossa.jpg, File:Yolande Cohen.jpg, File:Véronique Béliveau au SLM 2019.jpg, File:Solon McDade au café Résonance.jpg, File:Gilles Laporte au centre culturel Notre-Dame-de-Grâce -- 2.jpg, File:Monic Néron au Chez Roger.png, File:Patrick Lagacé au Chez Roger.png, File:Élise Guilbault au bar Chez Roger.png, File:Sophie Deraspe et Nahéma Ricci au LSEEJ.png and many, many more ― I picked these while browsing through user's upload at random dates. While these seem to be problematic on many levels regarding COM:SCOPE (especially regarding COM:EDUSE vs image quality), they strike me as lacking explicit consent. Candid photography of people seem to have taken roots in the users' modus operandi. Some subbjects or their representatives have explicitly asked for removal due to lack of consent on their behalf : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christian Chamorel dehors la chapelle historique du Bon-Pasteur.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Samuel Archibald (SDLM '16).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cynthia Girard-Renard au Stewart Hall.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flore laurentienne au festival Santa Teresa 2021.png and, once again, many, many more.

Considering the systematic nature of the problem. I think the situation is beyond recovery and that a simple warning would have little to no effect. Webfil (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think a block is in order. 108.58.166.134 13:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

These people are individuals of public interest, photographed during public presentations/appearances, and permission is not required to publish photos of persons of public interest taken in public places, even in Québec.

However, it is true that a lot of these photos are of poor quality. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@D. Benjamin Miller: The subject user has been known to license for commercial use and misidentify illegally posted photos of regular people as being of persons of public interest. See also this advice from the Faculty of Law of the University of Ottawa. 108.58.166.134 13:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Licensing for commercial use (in the sense of a copyright license like CC BY-SA) is not what is restricted by the law. It is the use of a person's likeness for certain commercial purposes which is restricted. That's a matter of personality rights; the copyright in the image belongs to the photographer alone. That's what we have the personality rights template for.
2. If the people are misidentified, that's a different issue. I'm only talking about when the people depicted really are who they're supposed to be.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@D. Benjamin Miller. I doubt taking pictures of a person driving their own car, dining at a restaurant or obviously trying to escape the photography/photographer (1, 2) is what the Supreme court justices had in mind in the Aubry case, when talking about the public interest. The decision defines the questions that must be asked in order to determine if the public interest prevails over the right to image :

• Is the subject of the picture engaged in a public activity? e.g. an artistic event, politics, a matter within the public domain such as an important trial, a major economic activity having an impact on the use of public funds or an activity involving public safety;
• If not, does the individual’s own action, albeit unwitting, accidentally places him or her in the photograph in an incidental manner? e.g. in a crowd at a sporting event or a demonstration.
• If not, is the individual an anonymous element of the scenery, even if it is technically possible to identify individuals in the photograph? The observer’s attention would then normally be directed elsewhere than towards the individual.

These four pictures no doubt escape the exceptions to the right of privacy as ruled by the Supreme court : in these, the subjects engage in private activities, they remain the main subjects of the photographs, they are not anonymous elements of a "bigger picture". Webfil (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

You could request deletion of these pictures. I would at least support deletion of poor quality pictures when not used. Yann (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, File:Jean-Michel Anctil chez le Monte Carlo à Charlemagne.jpg doesn't looks like dining at a restaurant; it looks like some sort of banquet event, because pretty much everyone seems to be looking the same direction. And the latter two don't look like trying to escape the photographer, they look like rapid snaps of someone walking past. - Jmabel ! talk 20:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

01:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC) the user uploaded File:Jay Du Temple CITE-FM.png.

12:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Myloufa nominated that file for deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jay Du Temple CITE-FM.png because "Subject barely recognizable. Out of COM:SCOPE as it has no educational use."

15:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC) the user reuploaded the file as File:Jay Du Temple CITE-FM -- 2.png, probably because of the above.

02:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Missvain closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jay Du Temple CITE-FM.png and deleted File:Jay Du Temple CITE-FM.png.

13:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Ytoyoda nominated File:Jay Du Temple CITE-FM -- 2.png for deletion as one of three files in the seventh section of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bull-Doser because they were "Low-quality images unsuitable for Wikipedia."

15:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Racconish closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bull-Doser and deleted File:Jay Du Temple CITE-FM -- 2.png.

15:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC) the user reuploaded the file as File:Jay Du Temple CITE-FM 107.3 Rouge.png, probably because of the above.

17:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Deletion Notification Bot 2 notified the user that Webfil had tagged File:Jay Du Temple CITE-FM 107.3 Rouge.png for speedy deletion with "Reason: Repost of File:Jay Du Temple CITE-FM.png, with added text at the end to make it through the filters."

19:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Túrelio deleted File:Jay Du Temple CITE-FM 107.3 Rouge.png because "CSD G4 (recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus): Repost of File:Jay Du Temple CITE-FM.png and/or File:Jay Du Temple CITE-FM -- 2.png, with added text at the end to make it through the filters."

108.58.166.134 20:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I have to say that I do not understand why Commons's administrators keep not doing anything about this user. It has been brought up many times that this user is problematic. Not only the quality of his pictures is quite questionable, but the context in which he takes them is problematic too. We had a user (resident wikimedian) reporting on FRWiki that this user is oftenly agressive when taking pictures. I would also like to cite @Webfil: here : "On La soirée est encore jeune, the host referred to Bull-Doser as Ti-Monsieur Louche ("Creepy Lil' Guy") a couple of times (they even had their own jingle!), because the person was nabbed multiple times taking surreptitious pictures of guests from outside the venue, making the guests uncomfortable." I am pretty sure that it is not the kind of thing Commons and by extent Wikimedia wants or should be associated with. He also has been permanantly blocked on FRWiki (which is technically not a ban, but is a point of no return) for adding his poor quality images that Wiki's article despite having been warned not to. When looking at all of this, I cannot understand why Commons is in a hurry to do nothing about it, considering it is not the first time these issues are reported.

--Myloufa (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Myloufa: I don't understand it, either.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 23:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Likewise. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Ditto. He's not getting permissions of people to take their photos and the images are often terrible. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

He also made another malformed deletion request: not including a valid reason; not creating the subpage; not transcluding; and not notifying.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Wider opinion on these images (and their negative effects on the perception of Wikipedia)

While I was considering the deletion request for this extremely poor image, I noticed that it was also linked to on in a discussion on the page of French Wikipedia user Julinette. (*) In response to the question "[translated] can you clarify why you are removing all these article illustrations please?", she says:-

[ auto-translated, with all emphasis added by myself ]

Hello JohnNewton8, I remove the images which are really of poor quality. For years, many articles by personalities from Quebec have been illustrated by Bull-Doser images which are often of very poor quality. I do not remove those where, at least, we can recognize the personality.

This contributor, although in good faith, greatly harms the image of Wikipedia. It was during several Radio-Canada broadcasts that I heard the hosts and columnists express indignation at the images of Francis Leclerc, the great Albert Millaire, Marie-Louise Arsenault, Sylvie Legault, Nathalie Mallette, Petru Guelfucci, Fanny Leeb , etc. There are hundreds of examples like these.

It was, among other things, for having degraded Wikipedia that it was banned in the English version... I hope I didn't make a mistake? Kind regards, Juliette (talk) December 23, 2018 at 3:45 p.m. (CET)

I've no reason to believe that this isn't true and, if so, it suggests that these images are perceived very negatively and reflecting badly upon French Wikipedia.

Of course, fr.wikipedia and Commons are separate projects, so what the former does/doesn't consider usable or acceptable doesn't automatically apply to us. But that's pretty damning regardless.

(*) Note; Julinette is also apparently on Commons (as Julinette (talk · contribs)) but apparently inactive since 2018. However, if she wishes to comment on this, I'd certainly welcome that.

Ubcule (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the effects on the perception of Wikipedia : Wikimedia Canada (based in Montréal, the same city as Bull-Doser) has been funnelling some funding into the Red Carpets Project for the last years, aiming "to improve the quality of photos in the biographical articles of the Wikipedia encyclopedia" by providing "public figures the opportunity to be photographed by Wikipedians under optimal conditions." The project was set-up in 2017, while Wikimedia Canada received regular requests either to remove the photo taken by an amateur or to replace them with copyrighted photos. With an average of 4 files uploaded every day for the last 17 years (not counting his sockpuppet's work), this guy has photographed a broad array of celebrities and artists in Montreal. I do not see how this project tightly linked to the Foundation would not be a counter-Bull-Doser operation. The project's description is allusive, yet not very ambiguous for that matter, even when you follow loosely the dude's work. To this date, Red Carpets Project collected 232 photos ― a mere drop in the ocean of noisy, blurry, poorly framed, poorly lit and sometimes unethical, nay questionably legal pictures.

I've talked about the malaise in the star system regarding his surreptitiousness and ubiquity ― some radio show even baptized him Creepy Lil' Guy and made a jingle for when he appeared. The whole story surrounding this is available here (at 19:58). I've translated the essence of it. The host is cocky about it, but there is a clear discomfort with the situation among the co-hosts (my translation) :

Host: The Creepy Lil' Guy was a man we didn't really know, who was always outside the window Chez Roger with his phone and taking photos of us without ever talking to us. He was like a squirrel; as soon as we came near, he ran away. It's very funny because last week, maybe a fortnight ago... well, we're in a studio overlooking Avenue Papineau at the corner of René-Lévesque...

Co-host 1: Don't say where we are!

Co-host 2: Not too many details, please!

Host: By the way, [Co-host 1] is sitting on the right, if you want to know...

Co-host 1: Please...

Host: No, but it's bulletproof glass! It's not even a joke!

Co-host 1: And my neck, it's the shiny one, it's easily accessible from the window...

Host: A couple of weeks ago, that Creepy Lil' Guy came to see us and took some photos. So he knows where we are.

Co-Host 1: All of this is not going to end well...

Co-Host 2: He's all over the place because I'd already seen him on the other side...

Host: The other side where?

Co-Host 2: Isn't Radio Énergie across the street?

Host: Yes.

Co-Host 2: He was there too and he was waiting for people at the exit. And I've already seen him at the Gémeaux gala, at the Place des Arts. He chases after the stars.

Add that to the numerous open complaints about the quality of Wikipedia's illustrations reported by Julinette, we can say that the discontent about the quality, quantity and ethics of work produced by this user is widespread and indeed affects negatively the perception of the Foundation's projects such as Commons and Wikipedia. Webfil (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Following Webfil's comment, I thought it might be useful to place a notice on the Discussion page at Red Carpets Project about this discussion. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Shawn à Montréal : je ne pense pas que d'impliquer la Fondation dans une discussion à propos d'un projet soit vraiment approprié. Il y a généralement une cloison assez étanche entre la gestion de Wikimedia et l'administration des communautés qu'elle finance. Même si ça part d'une bonne intention, ce genre de geste peut être assez mal perçu de la part d'autres utilisateurs. Webfil (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh. That sort of thing is way beyond my ken... I have no idea about this sort of thing. Sorry, Shawn à Montréal (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Webfil:

Ouch.

I assume they said that knowing nothing about who that random person was. However, assuming that it *is* Bull-Doser they're talking about, seeing that reposted in the context of this discussion makes it uncomfortably personal, and I'm genuinely starting to feel sorry for him here.

For reasons of privacy, I don't want to go into the details, but I know for a fact there are mitigating circumstances that most likely explain Bull-Doser's idiosyncratic behaviour here (and the various problems surrounding his work in general) and why- personally- he shouldn't be judged too harshly for it.

(For all that I've been critical of much of his work, I've tried- I hope- to avoid going too far in that direction for that reason).

That said, English Wikipedia's take on issues like this most likely applies here too, and even though taking and uploading images like this is clearly Bull-Doser's "thing", I don't think it's doing any favours to us or him to continue accepting them if they're causing problems like this.

Having thought about this, I'm now inclined to agree with the suggestion below that a topic ban (for people only, i.e. *not* extending to his other obsessive subject of cars) would probably be for the best, even if Bull-Doser didn't see it that way.

Ubcule (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Can we establish the facts before !voting?

Adding this after !voting has started below, because as a newcomer to this discussion I don't think the facts are well spelled out. It seems like there are three issues raised: (1) photo quality, (2) legality of photos of people, and (3) ethical concerns about how the user takes photos of people.

To me, (1) is not an issue. As long as it's recognizably a notable person, it's going to be in scope. An exception, sometimes, if we already have a huge number of higher quality photos. There is a reference to a discussion among some notable people dismayed at the quality of photos on Wikipedia. That is a pervasive issue on Wikipedia, and one which we have generally decided is not actually a problem. After all, if you have an article and want a better photo displayed, just give us one. This information isn't visible on the page itself, but easily accessible to anyone who googles "upload a better picture of me to wikipedia" or the like. It's also clear that some of the user's photos are not terrible quality. Just browsing their recent uploads shows a variety of standard phone-quality pictures of cars, for example. (2) is the least clear to me. According to Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Canada, the photos are legal to take and legal to upload as long as the person is "of public interest", "implicated in a public manner", or "included incidentally". Photos of celebrities or politicians on red carpets or even walking down the street are going to be legal in those cases. People in private businesses or their cars taken through windows are less clear. (3) is concerning. We do not want our photographers to bring Wikimedia into disrepute. Presumably this is what's meant by "creepy" below, but with an unhelpful and sarcastic exception that makes the proposal totally unintelligible. To me, under no circumstances should we be hosting blurry photos of someone surreptitiously photographed while inside their car, or through a window while they're eating. How can we define such a restriction? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a 4th reason too, which is the one that originally brought me here: they persistently malform uploads, such that other editors then have to clean them up (or go in circles with a deletion process which then goes nowhere). All for photos that just aren't worth having anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban from uploading?

Community patience seems to have worn very thin. Is there support for a formal sanction here, such as a topic ban from further uploads? @Bull-Doser: [written as part of the below by] Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Support topic ban from uploading any further images to Commons

1.  Support As proposer Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

{{support}} This is not a new user, or concern. The quality issues are ongoing, despite suggestions to Bull-Doser to get a better camera. I know that the torrent of images do include a lot that are of acceptable quality, so others may disagree. As far as consent, Quebec law seems to state that this user is not acting illegally even if he takes a picture without consent, as long as they are in some way "a person of public interest." So Bull-Doser reportedly behaving in a "creepy" way, as suggested above, may not be illegal but still harms the reputation of Wikimedia IMO as he is doing so on our behalf, whether we like it or not. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

1.  Support The low quality is an ongoing issue, and the manner in which the user takes photographs is also a detriment to Wikimedia's reputation as mentioned above. Abzeronow (talk) 17:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
2.  Support I think I've said enough on this thread. --Myloufa (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
3.  Support Bedivere (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
4.  Support --Adamant1 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
5.  Support. 108.58.166.134 03:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Please log in first. Yann (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

5.  Support   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
6.  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban from uploading any further images to Commons

•  Oppose There are some obviously problematic uploads and behavior here, but I'm temporarily putting myself in the oppose column because I don't think the problems have been well defined. Furthermore, since the second proposal below is unintelligible and sarcastic, the only thing we have to vote on is whether to block someone from uploading who has uploaded about 25k photos, including many that nobody seems to have found problems with. Narrower restriction first, then a total ban, is what I generally prefer to see. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Support topic ban from uploading any further 'creepy' images 'of people' to Commons, unless they also include an out-of-focus blob of a vehicle, to be defined individually per upload by a multi-thread discussion per image.

 Comment - Just noticed this childishly sarcastic, verging-on-POINT section title added above as part of your response to an honest misunderstanding on my part.

I've already replied elsewhere. However, for the record, the vehicle images I was referring to are those where the vehicle is very obviously the intended subject, as opposed to those of his sub-paparazzo images of people which happened to feature them in or near cars.

Bull-Doser's images have always fallen very clearly into one or other of those distinct groups. (For comparison).

Many of the vehicle images still have some serious quality issues, but they're not problematic to the same extent as the paparazzo ones.

Whether it is, or isn't, worth our time letting him continue to upload the former is the question here. Ubcule (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

1.  Support per others. Enough is enough. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
2.  Support   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment - Since there has been some confusion, I should make clearer what I was trying to say above:-

The wording of this section/proposal is not mine. It was added by Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) when he replied to a comment of mine and is very obviously sarcastic based on what he (wrongly) thought I was proposing:- "Support topic ban from uploading any further 'creepy' images 'of people' to Commons, unless they also include an out-of-focus blob of a vehicle, to be defined individually per upload by a multi-thread discussion per image". (In other words, a straw man mockery of my alleged position).

Can we please have this section- and the confusion caused as a result of its creation- struck out? Ubcule (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

So you don't like Bull-doser being simply and straightforwardly banned from uploading anything, because that would be nice and clear and simple. So you come here and argue that that wasn't what the very clearly worded proposal meant (it was), and encourage one of the supporters to withdraw their support. Then now after others have already expressed support for your other proposal, you want to withdraw that.

Just WTF is it that you want here? Why are you so keen to limit restrictions on Bull-doser? If you want to oppose these restrictions, there has always been a choice there for you to use. Just say "I oppose this" and maybe give us a reason why. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The muddying of the waters is entirely your fault for creating a section with wording that was a blatantly sarcastic mockery of my (alleged) position.

• "So you don't like Bull-doser being simply and straightforwardly banned from uploading anything, because that would be nice and clear and simple. "

This isn't really about the original subject (i.e. Bull-Doser) now though, is it? It's about the fact this discussion has grown so antagonistic that you take for granted that the other person is doing what they do purely for the sake of being difficult.

• "and encourage one of the supporters to withdraw their support."

No, I didn't. That was your (incorrect) kneejerk assumption.

• "Then now after others have already expressed support for your other proposal, you want to withdraw that."

I wanted them withdrawn because the wording (which was yours, not mine) was an obviously sarcastic- and loaded- misrepresentation of what you (wrongly) thought I was proposing. And because, as such, it was sowing confusion.

• "Just WTF is it that you want here?"

I already explained my position. I'd be happy to clarify it for you if I thought it would get us anywhere, but I've enough experience to know that when discussions get this antagonistic and polarised it'll either be lost in the noise or misinterpreted and provide fodder for further argument.

Ubcule (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban from uploading any further 'creepy' images 'of people' to Commons, unless they also include an out-of-focus blob of a vehicle, to be defined individually per upload by a multi-thread discussion per image.

1.  Oppose It's not a topic ban if it leaves it open per upload to have to question whether their image is within the bounds of their TBAN or not. That's why an effective TBAN stays simple.

Nor have Bull-doser's vehicle images been of much value either. They're mostly common vehicles, badly framed, badly lit, out of focus and usually with no licence tag on them, such that other editors have to edit later to clean them up. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment - The obviously sarcastic wording of this proposal is based on Andy's own wording and a strawman misrepresentation of my proposal which he added as part of the same edit where he posted a bad-tempered response to myself. Ubcule (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

2.  Oppose based entirely on the nonsensical, sarcastic framing. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Other

 Comment Can it be clarified that the proposed "topic ban" refers specifically to Bull-Doser uploading images of people or celebrities, rather than all subjects in general?

(This would effectively restrict him to uploading images of vehicles, since those are the only other things he seems to be interested in photographing). Ubcule (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

A block-only-for-upload is possible now, so that's an easy solution. Otherwise, Bull-Doser's uploads have to monitored. Yann (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I see. That's too bad. A big part of the problem is that none of us have the energy or time to continually monitor his uploads. So there you go. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: - I can't vouch for him or make any promises. However, my gut reaction is that if he was told bluntly and clearly that he was not allowed to upload images of people/celebrities at all or that he'd be blocked from uploading completely, he'd be capable of going along with that. And it would be fairly simple to completely drop the banhammer if he didn't.

Then again, would I (as someone who is normally a sporadic and intermittent contributor to Commons) be willing to police that personally? No. So probably what Shawn à Montréal (talk · contribs) said above applies. Ubcule (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• No, if I'd wanted that as a proposal, I'd have written that as a proposal. This is a proposal to stop uploads of "any further images". If you want to invalidate the vote on the basis that it was unclear, then submit an RfC and see if you can get a quorum of suitably validated users to vote there, then please do so. Or just say that you want to keep Bull-doser uploading more and more of his hugely valued car-shaped blobs.

I shall ping: @Shawn à Montréal: , @Abzeronow: , @Myloufa: , @Bedivere: , @Adamant1: , @108.58.166.134: just in case they'd like to change their expressed views. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I would be willing to monitor the users uploads if the topic ban only extended to people/celebrities. I'm here daily. Abzeronow (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind either way. Bedivere (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind either way too. --Myloufa (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be willing to help police this. But I've struck through my support !vote. I won't participate further in this discussion. I'm confident you'll come to the best solution, at this time. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: - "if I'd wanted that as a proposal, I'd have written that as a proposal. This is a proposal to stop uploads of "any further images". [..] If you want to invalidate the vote on the basis that it was unclear [etc]"

No, that wasn't what I was suggesting at all, not sure where you got that out of it.

My assumption was that a "topic ban" would be one restricted to activity related to a specific "topic"- or subject- such as people, cars, etc.

Indeed, that does seem to be what's meant by "topic ban" at English Wikipedia, so IMO that- along with my assumption that the ban related to the "topic" under discussion (i.e. people/celebrities)- is an understandable misinterpretation.

Perhaps it means something different here at Commons? It seems confusing and misleading to describe something as a "topic ban" if it's not a ban related to a specific topic, but maybe that's just me, and I've no desire to get into a grumpy-tempered argument over it. Ubcule (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I understood it to be a topic ban from uploading in general, not just in regards to people or celebrities. Images like this one aren't great either. It's not like we are hard up for images of GMC Sierra HDs. So Realistically what value does that add to the project, especially considering the other issues? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't oppose a topic ban, but the topic should be clear and objective. IMO "out-of-focus blob of a vehicle" isn't. It is much too subject to interpretation, and therefore to conflict. Yann (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ubcule and Yann: Would you be opposed to shortening "an out-of-focus blob of a vehicle" to "a vehicle"?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I am OK with that wording, as long as there is a consensus. Topic ban for "vehicles" seems clear enough for me. Yann (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yann and Jeff G.: - Just to be clear, the wording of that proposal...

"Support topic ban from uploading any further 'creepy' images 'of people' to Commons, unless they also include an out-of-focus blob of a vehicle, to be defined individually per upload by a multi-thread discussion per image."

is not mine and doesn't represent my position- quite the opposite.

It was added by Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) (here) as a response to one of my comments. The references to "out-of-focus blob of a vehicle" and suggestion that we have a "multi-thread discussion" for each and every one of Bull-Doser's uploads are very obviously sarcastic and a mockery of my alleged position.

The most charitable interpretation is that all this was in response to my misunderstanding of what Andy meant by a "topic" ban, and- I would assume- his misunderstanding what I was referring to regarding Bull-Doser's photos of vehicles (i.e. those with the vehicle very clearly as the primary focus, not the paparazzo-like ones that happened to feature a car somewhere).

Can we please have that POINT-like section (and the unnecessary confusion Andy caused when he created it) struck out? Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Can we please have you banned from this thread, or at least from popping up on any choice where other GF editors have already expressed their support for it, and you then telling them that that option doesn't exist and that you want to void their opinion because you don't agree with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You added that obviously sarcastic section title in the same the same edit where you posted an equally sarcastic and bad-tempered response to myself.

Let's not rewrite history and pretend you cared about making it a serious response. You were annoyed and created it as a deliberate mockery of what you (wrongly) thought I was proposing.

Ubcule (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An ocean liner fan234

User talk:An ocean liner fan234 joined Commons in mid-January, and uploads historic images of merchant ships. The user routinely fails to provide reliable copyright information; does not provide links to online sources; and categorises files extremely vaguely. I and other contributors have tried messaging this user, but have received no constructive response. I welcome the uploading of historic ship images, but I seem unable to persuade An ocean liner fan234 to apply the appropriate templates, links, and categories. Motacilla (talk) 22:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

If this is about the images you’ve been applying on the deletion I didn’t know those where not public domain I had been using public domain for all my pervious images and used it out of habit after uploading over 60 images using the public domain thing. As for the categories I don’t know what else to add for categories. And for the links I have never been good with adding links I struggled when adding the links to the gallia 1879 and satellite Wikipedia pages on the Cunard ship list. An ocean liner fan234 (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Listen man I don’t want my hard work to be deleted I spent lots of time uploading on them pls don’t do this An ocean liner fan234 (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete all. If you want to avoid that, put some real licence tags on them, not the obvious false ones. Don't expect other people to clean up after you, or else they're likely to do it with a hosepipe and flush the whole lot away. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
•  Done All files deleted. User may reupload them or request their undeletion if they provide some credible source info. --Bedivere (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Why man you ruined my day An ocean liner fan234 (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thankyou Andy Dingley and Bedivere for your help. However, An ocean liner fan234 is now swearing at me on my talk page! I have warned him about his behaviour, but I have no authority to do anything about it. Motacilla (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. An ocean liner fan intimidated not only the beautiful bird, but also other users. All his/her uploads are now deleted and it seems to me, that (s)he does not understand, why. So I decided to block him/her indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou Taivo. I note that An ocean liner fan234 has asked to be unblocked. Outside of Commons I have a busy few days ahead, but I will try to follow the discussion if I get the opportunity. Motacilla (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I have unblocked them but with their compromise to not upload copyright violations again, or files without insufficient information. They may be reblocked at sight if they incur again in such problematic behaviour that led to their original block Bedivere (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I will keep track of the user contributions, too. Bedivere (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Are my new images okay I tried adding more categories the sources to the images An ocean liner fan234 (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding more categories isn't the solution. You have to create a detailed category instead of adding many categories. The rework of your uploads is really time consuming! Ein Dahmer (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Bot for Freedom

• Bot for Freedom (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) – bot operated by Upload for Freedom
• Upload for Freedom (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) – operator of the reported bot

After the warning back in June 2023, the bot continues to upload files that infringe intact copyright. George Ho (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have not uploaded any files in copyright after June 2023. I only uploaded very old ancient books since then. I have only uploaded rare books from National Library in Taiwan, they are out of copyright without doubt.
• In the end of 2022 and the start of 2023, I have uploaded Republic of China (1912–1949) era books for the purpose of the preservation of human civilization. A small porportion were in copyright and I support anyone finding such files deleting them, and restore after they enter public domain. That is why I voted support in such nominations. Count me  Support in every such nomiations.
• I don't have more collections of Republic of China (1912–1949) era books so I have no plan to upload such kind anymore. I will only upload out of copyright without doubt in the future.--Upload for Freedom (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Hamboning300

Hamboning300 (talk · contribs) Upload video game screenshot. メイド理世 (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Final warning sent by Yann. Uploads deleted. ─ Aafī (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright violation

please delete all these files and gave warning non of them are free files all taken from google image [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Last warning sent, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Uiorez300. Yann (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Cherryenglishpleiku

Cherryenglishpleiku (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Upload advertising and selfie files. メイド理世 (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done files deleted, last warned user Bedivere (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

copy right viloation by user:MahdiMa81080

all the files tagged for deletation. Please gave user final warning.

also Mahdi0765 is illegal Sockpuppet of MahdiMa81080. Please block this account.

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Done --Bedivere (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences: Please make sure to notify all involved parties in question next time. In this case, it has already been handled but note this in the future. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Report of misuse of rollback permission, User:RodRabelo7

Hi,
Please see the @RodRabelo7 misuse of their rollback permission detailed on their talk page.
Accordingly, I request a consideration of the permission removal, and maybe intervention in the edit war.
Thank you, · ^מקף Hyphen _෴ · 21:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the move from incident to massacre was premature, and was obviously a contentious move so this should have been discussed first, then moved. Commons is not bound by NPOV, and we don't have to follow what English Wikipedia does. Wikidata uses the massacre wording, but this appears to have been changed by RodRabelo7. I also agree that rollback was unwarranted in this case as this was not a case of vandalism or a mistaken edit. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have reverted the move and started a CFD discussion per COM:CATMOVE. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• I'm ambivalent about removing the permission unless there's a pattern of misuse rather than a one-off incident. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with this, this appears to be a one-off incident. Thanks for starting the CfD. Abzeronow (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• I wouldn't see this as reason to remove it, but certainly a warning. It is not a good idea to use any sort of elevated position (rollback isn't available to all) to impose any position in any content dispute where the editor using it is in any way engaged in that content question. It's (by convention, I would agree that it's a pretty feeble superpower) that it's only used in cases of 'obvious vandalism' (or reversing GF accidental damage) where any 'reasonable editor' would support the same conclusion as an outcome. If it's a questioned issue, then don't use it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Thanks for writing. It is important for me to emphasize that I would not have turned here if I had not encountered the disregard and lack of understanding of the essence of my early application to them.
  Please note that they attacked me personally, contrary to the universal code of conduct, in order not to address my claim in my appeal to them. I'm afraid that this is a continuation of a pattern of behavior that was might also discovered before in sister projects (see centralauth).
  So, I suggest that their response to the warning will be required as to make sure that the warning has indeed achieved its purpose and can be satisfied. · ^מקף Hyphen _෴ · 10:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment Irregardless of the nitty-gritties of the specific solution, rollback shouldn't be used except in cases of vandalism or spam. This discussion should serve as a final warning to Rod about their use of rollback. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Final? What other warnings there been Trade (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  In a perfect world, you shouldn't even receive a single warning because the tool is not supposed to be misused. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

User:64.189.18.17

• 64.189.18.17 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Please delete all the contribution of User:64.189.18.17. Senseless changes on the summary templates in files. Thank you, DenghiùComm (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ! DenghiùComm (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright violation

non of these uploads are own work of user. please delete all and gave warning to user.

Luckie Luke (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Luckie Luke: You failed to mention or notify Hosseinnnnnpn (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, as instructed above. I did it for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 17:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked 2 weeks, files deleted. Bedivere (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bedivere: I don't think a block is appropriate in this situation, as the user wasn't warned. I think you should lift the block and provide a {{File copyright status}} warning. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 20:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Will do. For some reason I thought they had already been warned. My bad. Bedivere (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Bedivere: , are you going to make a habit of issuing two-week first blocks, Isurus88 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, and to users who haven't received any warning? Especially when you've just abused rollback on their user talk.

You haven't been an admin for a week yet and I'm already thinking of drafting a recall... This is seriously unimpressive. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

In my defense I have not seen there's something of a guideline regarding the duration of blocks. I've seen some get one or two week blocks for repeated copyright violations. I was at fault at not warning them first and have ammended my error by unblocking Hossein and giving them a warning instead. Regarding Isurus88, I already responded that I considered all of their last removals of content as vandalism. Maybe I should not have reverted their user talk page removal, because anyway, the warnings are still there at the history. But calling that an abuse, I think it is too much. I think the two-week block is warranted, though, for their incivility and copyright violations despite warnings. I have to say I am always more than open to ammend my actions if needed, and will take your comments into account next time, for sure. Bedivere (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It's an abuse of rollback. There's a thread in the last few days just above here: #Report of misuse of rollback permission, User:RodRabelo7 where that is made clear. Particularly as it's also accepted practice that editors (of any standing) may delete warnings from their user talk: pages. This is newbie stuff and for an admin to be questioning it is concerning. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I did read that but there is not a content dispute here. You don't seem to understand that the user was removing content across several pages, which is the reason why I rollbacked that edit. Questionable? Yes. An abuse? I don't think so. I have since removed the warnings the user removed, for your information. Not to mention I will not revert such removals again. Finally, while it is of course the common practice here to allow removal of warnings, it isn't on the Spanish Wikipedia, where I started editing. Bedivere (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

copyright violation and fake license

please delete all these files and gave final warning to uploader for adding fake license Luckie Luke (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done First warning sent, don't think it's appropriate to send a final warning. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 17:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Self-promotion by User:Ethanplatt

• Ethanplatt (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Only edit has been to upload their headshot for their self-written article on en-wiki. Alachuckthebuck (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done File deleted. Bedivere (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response! Alachuckthebuck (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I've deleted two other files that were out of scope and are personal (COM:WEBHOST). Bedivere (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, would this be grounds for a block? Alachuckthebuck (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck: Not yet, I warned them for uploading oos content.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 05:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

ShahsavareIran

non of these uploads are own work of user ShahsavareIran (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. they are logos and some image taken from google image . please delete all and gave final warning to user.

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 05:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences You could just tag the images that are infringing copyright instead of making generic requests. This would be more efficient for us to handle. Bedivere (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bedivere all the information that uploader presentated in files are in Farsi language and all are fake information/ For example water mark and mentioned as own work or user here mentioned source as Website (وب سایت) this football club has only telegram page [1]

Yes, if there are specific cases i always tagining with explaplanation

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Mention all of that (and as much detail as you can) in {{Copyvio}} if it's a copyvio. An admin will then handle it as appropriate. SHB2000 (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences: I can't find any copy of File:تصویر هوایی از روستای چالو.jpg on the Internet, so since the watermark is in Farsi, it is difficult to know where this comes from. If you nominate it for deletion, please provide details. I deleted some files. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: The watermark reads what the image depicts, and it is Chalu, Behshahr, a place in Iran. ─ Aafī (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Promotional/non-free content by User:Ingantmus

• Ingantmus (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Uploading only promotional content for Sigva here , here and here doesn't seem to be promotional in nature, but definitely non-free. Alachuckthebuck (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Warned, files already tagged. Yann (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Alachuckthebuck (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

2405:4802:1CC0:D040:390E:9990:7336:43F3 and 2405:4802:1CFD:C5C0:7517:E250:D5B0:4504

• Special:Contributions/2405:4802:1CC0:D040:390E:9990:7336:43F3
• Special:Contributions/2405:4802:1CFD:C5C0:7517:E250:D5B0:4504

The first IP came into my talk page exactly two weeks ago, taking issue at my work on a FakeSVG I fixed on December, immediately throwing personal insults at me (Direct quote: No offense, but your drawing really does look like a woman's pussy). I tried being civil, pointing out that my edit is based on the source and that the user is free to link a clear source that validates their claims, because the one the file is currently based on doesn't. I got back claims of not not knowing the history of Vietnam, trying to misrepresent it, and being told that if [I] like drawing pussy, then [I] should ask someone to reattach Venus's arms and rebuild the Colosseum and that [I] should delete [my] edits so they have nothing to do with [their] Vietnamese culture anymore.

They came back with a different IP, either using a different device or after DHCP, linking a video of military marching, which shows the flag in question (very limp and low-res, though, so I don't know if I can use it as a source). It came with being told that [I] have proven that [I am] conservative in [my] ignora-nce (not sure what this means) and more stuff about Venus' arm. What's important here is that they call it their drawing, which makes me believe this is the person behind User:Vietnam.Conghoa, who uploaded the original FakeSVG and which has been suspected of sockpuppetry. Rubýñ ^(Talk) 21:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment The whole range Special:Contributions/2405:4802:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 is concerned. Yann (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know this at all! I thought it was only these two IPs. What will happen? Rubýñ ^(Talk) 22:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Best would be to have a request for check user. Yann (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I've made the request. I hope this goes well. Thank you for helping. Rubýñ ^(Talk) 06:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

user:KrakauKrakau

KrakauKrakau (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) ungrounded accusations of vandalism: [2] [3] [4] [5], mass removing deletion templates from file pages: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Quick1984 (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Update: recent accusations of vandalism and removing of deletion templates after this request: [13] [14] [15] --Quick1984 (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. 2 weeks block: one for removing deletion templates and another for intimidation. Taivo (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Unblock declined. Yann (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hergueney

Hergueney (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has continued uploading non-free images after the warning. --Ovruni (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Uploads deleted and last warning sent. ─ Aafī (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Aryannam

• User: Aryannam (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Only uploads screenshots of nonfree software with really bad names in violation of COM:FN and COM:EVID policy.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Deleted the nonsense. Although I believe there's good ground to issue a block, NOTHERE, I do not want to push the button myself. I have left them a final warning. ─ Aafī (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

User:CtasACT

CtasACT (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Can I get some admin eyes on this editor please. Two of their uploads have previously been CSD'd as consequence of them being unambiguous copyright violations and I've just CSD'd a third. TarnishedPath^talk 09:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Please note a review of their talk page history reveals that they have blanked their talk page 5 times and that a there have been numerous uploads of theirs which have been CSD'd because they were copyright violations. Additionally they have received warnings from other editors to stop uploading copyright violations. TarnishedPath^talk 10:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yann cheers. TarnishedPath^talk 11:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Kokenspun

• Kokenspun (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Given recent uploads, this looks like a likely sockpuppet of User:Illystar / User:Eron Lushaj (cf. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 111#User:IllyStar and User:Eron Lushaj). Omphalographer (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user indefinitely and mass deleted all his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Mosbatho (remove file rename right)

Mosbatho (remove right)

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

Please remove the file renaming right from the above account following the user's incorrect application of our file renaming policy. Discussions at village pump and user's talk page didn't help.

At first, it seemed an issue trivial to address, but instead of solving it in a straightforward manner, the user leaves it to the requestor to justify (who restates reasons already given when I noticed the rename running across Wikipedia) and insists on it being correct. The user was given ample time to fix it. I conclude he'd do the same again and generate more stuff for others to fix. (moved here from Commons:Requests_for_rights#Mosbatho_(remove_right)).

Enhancing999 (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Permalink makes better sense. @Enhancing999 It is necessary to notify the concerned users about the discussion whenever initiated at AN, as guided at the top of this noticeboard. Please take care of this in future. I have done it for you this time. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The user asked me to not post on in his talk page. I respect that. Besides, he got a notification by my comment above. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The user has committed and acknowledged their error. I don't think this warrants the removal of the right. Bedivere (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Did he? Enhancing999 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that Enhancing999 never considered it a trivial matter before whatsoever, I wonder at what point such a withdrawal of rights is due. 4,854 page moves have been done by me. Is there a threshold at which such a withdrawal of rights is to be applied, or is one subject to the efforts of an individual? Furthermore, I have never forbidden Enhancing999 to use my user page. --Msb (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to this. What do you think went wrong in this case, how you plan to improve on that? How many "obvious error"-renames were similar to the one here? Enhancing999 (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Bedivere

Not a user problem. Please discuss licenses and copyright issues on the appropriate venues. Yann (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Bedivere (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

El usuario ha pedido la eliminación de todas las banderas y escudos del Ecuador que he subido, alegando que "no son de dominio público", no obstante, le he mostrado la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual de Ecuador, [16] cuyo artículo 10 establece que las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias, las decisiones e instrumentos judiciales, los acuerdos, deliberaciones y resoluciones de los organismos públicos, así como sus traducciones oficiales (esto abarca toda clase de símbolos oficiales), no son objeto de protección de ninguna índole. No obstante, ha hecho caso omiso de ello, malinterpretando la ley a su manera, a pesar de que es un recurso aceptado hace varios años atrás en Wikimedia Commons. -- David C. S. 17:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• The intellectual property law of Ecuador has been misinterpreted to date. It makes no mention whatsoever about an exception to copyright protection for coats of arms, flags, emblems and other symbols. It does mention that it does not protect "las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias, las resoluciones judiciales y los actos, acuerdos, deliberaciones y dictámenes de los organismos públicos, así como sus traducciones oficiales", which suggests it refers to words, text, not artworks such as those mentioned before, but essentially law and rules, speeches originating from public institutions. I have been going through some of the flags and coats of arms, nominating for deletion those that seem to me they are not public domain, and unless they are 70 years old, they all should be deleted. I have deleted some blatant copyright violations during my journey; in fact, I could have just deleted them all at sight as they are clear copyright violations to me, however I wanted to open deletion requests for David to defend their uploads and to get second opinions. I ask a fellow admin to take whatever actions deems necessary. As I pointed out recently on David's talk page, they've been incorrectly adding {{PD-EC-exempt}} as a means of justification of some files' licensing, but as I've expressed before, it does not apply to artworks. If David can find a judicial decision explicitly saying, based on that law, that it does extend its exception to artworks, then I may change my opinion. As it reads very explicitly, it does not. --Bedivere (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not to mention David C. S. has overwritten some legitimate PD flags in order to include copyrighted artwork. See for example: File:Bandera Pedro Vicente Maldonado.jpg. Bedivere (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  They've also completely disregarded my talk page message by continuing to add the template PD-EC-exempt after my message. See their contribs and [17]. --Bedivere (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Disagreements about licenses, and interpretation of laws should be discussed in the appropriate places, i.e. DRs and COM:VPC. This is not a user problem. I converted 2 speedy deletions into regular deletions. Yann (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose There is no user problem here, per Yann. Nothing to do in this thread. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• •  Support La denuncia de David C. S. aquí no es por DRs, sino por el comportamiento de Bedivere, quien se ha mostrado muy hostil, llegando incluso a amenazar con bloquear a David C. S. [18] Ha dilatado el tema de DRs, no queriendo aceptar lo expuesto en la ley ecuatoriana, e incluso se lo ha tomado personal,[19] lo cual no es propio de un administrador de Wikimedia Commons.

Rodolfo Matias (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The user had been openly disregarding a warning about the misuse of the template. This is not a crusade against David, not at all, but against the misinterpretation of the law. Bedivere (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The block message was appropriate to me when I read it. It shouldn't be taken personally but as a viewpoint of preventing causing disruption to the project's legal peace. A09 (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rodolfo Matias

Rodolfo Matias has made some comments that have been unfriendly, to say the least. Given that I'm the subject of them, I am not taking action and ask somebody to do so.

• "Se nota que Bedivere no entiende de la legislación ecuatoriana." It is obvious Bedivere does not understand Ecuadorian legislation.
• "Primero que todo si eso te parece un insulto entonces eres una persona muy frágil e inseguro". First of all, if that seems like an insult then you are a very fragile and insecure person.

These have been posted at the PD-EC-exempt talk page, linked above. Bedivere (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Question Have you communicated with them about their civility first? --SHB2000 (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)