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

Adamant1[edit]

Adamant1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Hi, This user has a problematic behavior, repeatedly going for personal attacks ([1], [2]) when actions are contested, notably creating a large number of disruptive deletion requests about FOP in Belgium. I am not the only one thinking that this is a problem. Yann (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to point out specific diffs right now, and it's not like Yann has either, but he has a long history of personally attacking me and trying to get me blocked over essentially nothing. This latest thing is just yet another example of that and just seems to be retaliation on Yann's part because I dared to write a message on his user page asking another administrator how I was continuing something that they seem to be the only one's discussing weeks later, which is my propagative. I have a right ask an administrator about something on their talk page or for evidence of behavior that they are clamming I'm doing. So I don't really see what the issue here is. Otherwise Yann should provide diffs of what he's actually talking about instead of just linking to a patently false comment by someone else that has nothing to do with me. I certainly don't see how the two comments he linked to are at all personal attacks or "problematic behavior" like he's claiming. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are being rather aggressive though. Yann can be abrupt at times, but he has always been careful to characterise actions and not the person. For instance, he said one if your DRs was a nonsense, but not that you are a nonsense. You took offence at this, but despite the abruptness of the tone it was an opinion that your DR had no substance. It is quite all right to challenge the actions of another party, personally I would not have ysed thr word “nonsense” as it is a bit inflammatory, but at the end of the day that is a fair opinion and he did explain why he thought this was the case. You reacted emotionally, but instead you could have just explained why you believe Yann to be wrong. I do t think you are doing yourself any favours here. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I'd only like to add some more confirmation to that Yann is not the only one thinking that is a problem. Not considering other issues, Adamant1 frequently went for personal attacks always with impunity and I don't have all of them noted but they include this and this (there's a lot more but I don't have them in mind right now). On the other hand, I don't know of a WMC policy against personal attacks and incivility. This is the sort of interaction behavior that keeps people away from contributing to Wikimedia (I don't think it's major reason for why there's few contributors on WMC in specific but it is an issue). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m confused - there are two diffs to what are supposedly personal attacks, but I must be odd if something. How are they personal attacks? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I don't know for all the RfD's in question, but this one is definitely disruptive. The shown information boards are obviously in public places and Belgum has introduced full commercial FoP some years ago. So yes, if Adamant1 is so upset about different opinion of some admins on these images that he needs to attack these people ad personam, a sanction may be in place. Regards --A.Savin 23:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I wasn't upset that "different opinion of some admins" on the images. I had an issue with Yann closing the DRs out of process and without discussion. But I then dropped it after we discussed it on their talk page. Their the one who then continued to bring it up weeks later. Nowhere have I attacked anyone in relation to it either. Except to ask how I'm continuing something that I haven't even discussed or had anything to do with in weeks. That's not a personal attack though. Otherwise be my guest and provide some actual evidence.
BTW, I'll also point out that in the DR you linked to as supposedly disruptive I spent plenty of time researching it before hand, wrote multiple comments saying why I think they aren't public places based on the evidence, and the closing comment that "the signs are placed in public accessible places" is just patently false. Plus it's not the standard for FOP in Belgium anyway. That's fine, but it's not on me if the closing administrator decided to ignore the evidence. Again though, I dropped it and moved on while they and Yann pettily continued it days and weeks later. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment As usually, Adamant1 doesn't see what the issue is, and is willing to put up walls of text to explain why he's not the problem but everyone else is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about you tell me what the issue is then instead of just going off about how many lines I wrote like there's a limit or you've never written a long message before? I'm more then willing to modify my behavior or do something differently next time if someone points out an actual problem with how I acted. r/explainlikeimfive lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Five year olds are known for yelling or asking why until their parents give in or say "because I said so". If you want to learn, try listening a little, instead of having the most words in any conversation you're a part of.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but five year olds ask why out of genuinely curiosity and as part of the normal learning process. Apparently administrators are above reproach for their actions and people don't need to provide evidence of anything in an ANU complaint though. So my bad for asking. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Five year olds also ask "why" because they want to provoke a response, even when they don't care about an answer. They also don't go "So my bad for asking"; that's teenagers, and they're willfully being abrasive then. Teenagers also go lol, not when they're trying to honestly figure out what's happening, but when they don't care what the other person has to say.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This analogy is getting a bit ridiculous and I think you have both stretched it to breaking point. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop using lol; it's rude to laugh at people. Use the preview button; it's hard to have a conversation when every time you hit submit, the person has changed their post and you have to go back and readd your comment. There is a limit; people get annoyed when one person writes long posts after everything that anyone else says. Say what you need to stay and stop posting. Don't make it personal; as I pointed out, you took a response by Yann that was dismissive to your DR as an excuse to attack him.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prosfilaes Weren't you the one telling me to assume good faith recently in another discussion? I ask question because I'm genuinely curious. If an administrator who I've had chronic problems with closes a couple of my DRs out of process and with no discussion, I'd like to know why so it can be avoided in the future. That's all. You seem to stuck between criticizing me about how I'm unwilling to accept feedback on the one hand, but being just as critical about me asking people questions so I can improve how I do things in the future on the other though. And to the degree that I've made it personal, that's only because Yann did and then refused to stop when I asked him to. So I thought it was something he'd be cool with. I'm not here to be personally attacked week after week by the same person in a way that they don't treat anyone else while I act like it's nothing about them or our relationship in return. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, for example, [3] from that DR where he wrote "if you had of looked into it before commenting you would have noticed that Natuurpunt is a non-profit environmental organization that maintains private nature reservations and the standard for FOP in Belgium only applies to "locations that are permanently accessible to the public."" None of this information was provided in the DR already, and the proposer of deletion should have noted if they knew about it. But he starts the sentence with the aggressive "if you had of looked into it before commenting" instead of just providing the information.
Or, say, [4] where Yann talks about the DR and Adamant1 responds with a completely personal attack. Yann could have been nicer in his comment, but it was about the DR and not Adamant1.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree that I probably could have wrote a more detailed explanation for the first example. It's always a balance between being brief in DRs versus writing a bunch of extra details that no one will read and easily be found by reading the infobox in the category though. I tend to assume that people will at least do the basic of looking at other images in the category before commenting and the infobox for it clearly says Natuurpunt is an "organization for nature and landscape protection in Flanders." I'll also note that the person I was responded to thought the images were taken in the Netherlands, not Belgium. So they clearly didn't look into it beforehand. And they should have. You'd have to agree that as the nominator I shouldn't have to tell people or otherwise provide obvious, easily findable details like what country we're talking about. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have to agree that you should force people to dig around to find the basic information about a DR, like what the relevant law is. You want us to feed you all the details about this ANU, but heaven forbid you mention relevant details about what nation the photos are in and how the relevant FoP impacts it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes: No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Let alone dig around to find information. I'm certainly not. In this case all the person I was responding to had to do was look at the top of the DR since I added Category:Belgian FOP cases/pending to it before they commented. Apparently expecting someone to simply look at the deletion request before they comment on it is to high of a bar for people like you and forcing them to do something though lol. Regardless, your boxing ghost because the information was included when I added the maintenance category even if I didn't explicitly spell it out for people. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. From what I can see, User:Adamant1 is a generally valuable contributor, but a bit abrasive and rather combative. I certainly would oppose him for adminship, but that is presumably not what we are discussing here.
  2. I seriously doubt there is anything here worth a block, but if someone feels otherwise I'd like to see some specific diffs. Or is there some other specific action that Yann or someone else here is requesting?
Jmabel ! talk 01:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I share similar sentiments. --SHB2000 (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1 should at least get a final formal warning that this kind of behavior is not OK on Commons. See messages above by A.Savin and Prosfilaes. Yann (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or conversely you could just lay off the harrassing personal comments and sparious ANU complaints like I've asked you to multiple times now already. Not to that I acted 100% perfectly here, but I can guranteed there wouldn't have been an issue if you had of just dropped it and stopped making things personal after both me and Chris.sherlock2 told you your comments weren't productive. You seem to have the attitude that your beyond reproach and have no role in repeatedlhy instigating things with me for no reason what-so-ever though.
I'm fine being civil, but its a two way street and I'm not here to just be bullied by an adminstrator who can't stand people disagreeing with or questioning them. Sorry. Again, that's not to say I couldn't have acted better, but its been an endless struggle dealing with you and you just seem to have a smug attitude every time I've asked you a question about your actions or asked you to lay off it. So I don't know what you expect. Your the only person I've had any serious chronic issues with on here though, and that's not for nothing. Otherwise I'd probably be fine at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, you could perhaps not characterise his DRs as “nonsense”. I defend your right to do so, but if you want to reduce conflict you could use less inflammatory language. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, As I told Adamant1 on my talk page, this is a language issue. The French translation doesn't seem to have the same tone as the English word. So I apologize for this word. Yann (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this. I think this was part of the reason why the DR got so out of hand. I respect your apology as I cannot speak more than one language :-) hell, I have amazing respect for anyone who can speak more than their native tongue! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like Adamant1 should tone things down a little, they are a valuable contributor, but often too argumentative for their own good. I am in agreement with Jmabel here. Abzeronow (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I also agree with the "often too argumentative for their own good." We tend to do less "tone policing" than some other WMF wikis, but Adamant1, I have to say: when others write to you in the same tone you so often use, you often seem to feel insulted and attacked. Why would you expect them to feel differently when you write that way?
Unless there is either (1) a much more solid case here than I've seen or (2) are possibilities of very mild sanctions that I can't think of, I'd oppose disciplinary action against Adamant1 at this time (in particular, I haven't seen him use this tone with newbies, his style seems to be more right-up-to-the-line than over-the-line, and I'm pretty sure the complaining parties here can handle it), but I'd also appreciate it if Adamant1 tried to be more collegial and less combative. Adamant1: at some point, even if you are not breaking any actual rules and even if you are doing good work, if it gets to where you are repeatedly discouraging other contributors or making their time here unpleasant, you become a net liability to the project. I assume that is not something you wish to be. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but then I can be absolutely dragged and insulted by multiple users for weeks or months on end and the same people complaining here won't even bat an eye about it for some reason. Anyway, I'm not going relitigate every minor disagrement I've had on here, but in this particular instance Yann instigated things by making unasked for personal comments about me in a couple of conversations. Me and another user asked him to lay off and said they weren't productive, but he decided to continue with it. So I left the message on his talk page and the village pump.
Yann is 100% the one who started this, continued it weeks later by not just dropping the attitude when multiple people asked him to, and is cry bullying with this ANU complaint. Its not even that I necessarily feel attacked either. Its just that I don't think endlessly making personal comments about someone and obstructing their edits in order to goad them into a confrontation like Yann has an established history of doing with me is productive. Nor am I go just sit here with a big fat grin on my face while interacting with an admin who refuses to acknowledge their side of an issue or respect my request that they stop trying to make things personal and stir up drama. Sorry. This is only a thing because Yann refuses to lay off it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What personal comments are you referring to? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support whatever is suggested, per Prosfilaes, and anyone who's here to 'make the internet not suck' (as used to be our goal). I pay little attention to Adamant1 as the only way to get through the day, but I almost never see them do anything positive and their overall negative effect is just too large. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know the roots of the problem with Adamant1. But I is a very good participant of the Commons:WikiProject Postcards. He is very committed and extremely helpful there. It would be a bitter loss for Commons to scare him away or ban him completely. I get on very well with him and can only report constructive and productive discussions with him. - Perhaps it would be good if everyone took a deep breath and stepped back a little. We all want to make Commons even better together. Let's do this constructively and in partnership. --sk (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What admin action is needed here?[edit]

I’m a little confused. Clearly there is a personality conflict and some legitimate complaints of abrasive behaviour. But as I paraphrase what another contributor said the other day, people don’t necessarily need to be friends with one another here. What specific actions are admins meant to be taking? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, As per his responses above, notably [5], clearly Adamant1 doesn't understand the problem, and continues to blame me and others for their behavior. And we don't need people with "abrasive" behavior on Commons. Now I don't want Adamant1 to leave, but I want a change of behavior. If a report on ANU is not sufficient to get this change, something stronger is needed. Yann (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was pretty abrasive to call his DR “nonsense”, though I understand why you said it. Regardless, what particular sanction are you looking for? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that this was a mistranslation issue. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, a final formal warning that this behavior is not acceptable, and that absence of change would lead to a block. Yann (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: I see you apologized for the "nonsense" comment above. I appreciate that. My guess is that a lot of this comes down to a language issue and cultural differences. I certainly meant no harm in how I responded to Romaine on your talk page. I was genuinely carious what behavior they were claiming I was continuing since I hadn't been involved in anything to do with the topic for weeks and I think it's important to back up such accusations with diffs. Especially when they are coming from an administrator. Otherwise we just risk wasting everyone's time later down the line on spurious ANU complaints like this one. In no way did I mean it to be "abrasive" though. I was simply responding to a comment that I found rather odd considering that I had moved on to other things weeks ago.
In no way is that to blame you or anyone else for anything. It's just to say that it wasn't my intent to be abrasive. You seem to have a serious issue with assuming good faith when interacting with me though. I've said several times now that I could have acted better and been clearer about things in the deletion requests. So why not accept it and move on? I'm more then willing to accept the apology and bury the hatchet going forward if your willing to do the same on your end. I've said several times now that I don't think this whole thing with you is productive and that I'd like to see it resolved. Your disingenuous attitude and lack of good faith towards me whenever we interact is keeping it from happening though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what Abzeronow and I both said above: there is a problem here, but it is a minor one, and it doesn't call for sanctions. I'd appreciate if both sides, but especially Adamant1, would just turn down the thermostat. - Jmabel ! talk 14:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I don't think any admin action is needed here for the time being. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen that Adamant1 gets quite heated during DRs and VP discussions etc. but I don't think this requires any admin action. The good constructive contributions far outweigh the occasional heated PA. Though if Yann and Adamant1 continue fighting maybe an IBAN will be due (or they can voluntarily impose it on themselves if they want). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate behaviour despite warning[edit]

Hello,

@Cyanmax: was warned by @Jmabel: in November 2023 for, among other reasons, making a nasty remark about Nepal on a completely unrelated page. Now he is back on the same page, this time with a remark about air pollution in the same country. Huñvreüs (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think some sort of action is in order; I'm going to leave it to someone other than me to decide what. - Jmabel ! talk 16:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User notified. Abzeronow (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning this, gth can apparently mean either good to hear or go to Hell. Well, I learned something today. Huñvreüs (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can also mean "good to hear". That's one way for plausible deniability i guess? Trade (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are u gonna block my account for providing a reliable source and writing GLAD TO HELP? Wow. That's hilarious and hysterical. I didn't know that providing a reliable source and writing GLAD TO HELP is a crime. Anyway, I don't care. Cyanmax (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down and remain cool. I understand your frustration, but getting heated isn't going to resolve things. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the context, my natural instinct is to believe they meant "Go to hell", but also AGF... --SHB2000 (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AGF is certainly important and, for example, would lead a benevolent person to believe that GFY means Good for you. The question being where the limit stands between AGF and naivety. Huñvreüs (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question being where the limit stands between rational thinking and paranoia. We all know that false accusations of hysterical and paranoid people led to the Catholic inquisition and political repression in the Soviet Union. There's nothing criminal with saying "Russia is freezing" or "India is the most polluted country". Facts are facts. Trying to block someone's account for providing a source or writing 3 letters is even more hilarious. Cyanmax (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyanmax: this looks like the farthest thing from an apology. There is nothing wrong with saying "Russia is freezing" if it is germane. It is another thing to say it as a dismissive remark responding to praise of Chekhov.
I personally feel like you are trolling: trying to stay just within the lines of what is easily called out as a rules violation without actually stepping over. In general, that is not acceptable behavior here. This is not some sort of game about showing you can still be nasty while precisely following rules. It is a collaborative effort to build a media repository. At some point, behavior like this becomes a problem, worthy of sanctions.
So as an admin here I have two things to say:
  1. If you do accidentally or deliberately step over the line, don't expect even the slightest benefit of the doubt.
  2. Given that you seem to be inclined to use abbreviations that are usually hostile, while claiming to mean other things by them, just stop using them. Again, next time I for one will not give you the benefit of the doubt. - Jmabel ! talk 14:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this discussion is ongoing, may I ask how this new contribution by @Cyanmax: can be considered with respect to Commons:Civility? Huñvreüs (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing problematic about that. What would be a problem there? I might even have tagged the file page with {{Fact disputed}} until this is fixed. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue considering that the fact in question is disputed. It is usually my understanding, however, that requests should not be made using the imperative form and needlessly stressing urgency as if other people were some kind of servants ("Fix the map asap"), but instead, using "please", "could someone…", or any other similar locution. Huñvreüs (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hyper-civility is nice, but cannot be required. - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dear, huñvreüs, I am asking u politely to stop stalking me and trying to block me with your ridiculous, absurd accusations. I think this is hysterical. Please, stop exaggerating and demonizing everything I write. Bye. Cyanmax (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyanmax: perhaps when someone questions your edit, and is told, basically, "No, that is not a problem," you could refrain from accusing them of saying "ridiculous" and "absurd" things and being "hysterical." Unless you are actually trying to stir up more of a fight, or trying to see if you can manage to be sanctioned, that's a strange choice, to say the least. - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to comment as well, saying that Cyanmax has a history of getting into conflicts with South Asians on other wikipedia pages as well. The user has been the source of numerous temporary bans. SamanthaWinning (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore the user still seems to be getting into conflicts with other users of South Asian descent and/or interested in South Asia despite having numerous warnings and temporary bans. SamanthaWinning (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to back up your claims with evidence. Cyanmax (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I admit I helped to block several sockpuppet accounts. Why is your account created only 7 days ago? Is there any hidden agenda, revenge? Just a question. Cyanmax (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyanmax: "Revenge"? You really don't know how to assume good faith, do you? I started out thinking no sanction was in order, but now I'm going to block you for a day, just for the things you've written on this very thread. This isn't particularly either punitive or not punitive; it's just you don't get to use a situation in which numerous people are accusing you of incivility as an occasion to be even less civil. - Jmabel ! talk 14:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio socks[edit]

These two accounts are socks of each other (enwiki CU confirmed, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aviation_fan_guy):

with Aviation fan guy being the older of the two. Here on Commons, both are also engaging in the same behaviors as each other. User:Yann has blocked 737-200fan for a week for copyvio. So I assume Afg be blocked also. Should Afg e blocked for the same length? Or should one be indef'ed (and if so, which one)? Or should both be indef'ed (copyvio and other disruption, as well as the sock problem)? DMacks (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I blocked AFG indef. for socking. The master dates from March 30. Yann (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to this sort of handling, but for the record:
737: registered globally March 29, attached to commons March 29, first edit on commons March 30
Afg: registered globally March 25, attached to commons March 26, first edit on commons April 5
DMacks (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Neutral Sysop Mediation[edit]

Hi

@باسم and I have been engaged in a discussion regarding a map translation from French to Arabic. While he changed the original title and description, I requested him kindly that the original text in the derivative file, stated to be in Arabic without modifications, be preserved. He accused me of falsifying history without presenting any concrete evidence and without engaging in a meaningful discussion. This accusation is entirely baseless, then he started an edit war. I simply asked for the translation to be faithful to the original or for him to create his own derivative map.

As a result, an edit war ensued.

Unfortunately, @علاء, who shares a friendship with باسم on arwiki, used their sysop privileges to favor the version of باسم by blocking the edits and removing the tag. علاء was never been involved in the Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons discussions before, he suddenly appeared on the page out of nowhere. Therefore, I am seeking a neutral sysop to mediate between us. I am not necessarily insisting on the tag's removal, but I dislike how users utilize their privileges to impose their views. I am looking for a neutral contributor to help resolve this matter.

Regards. Riad Salih (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Please see special:permalink/872117493#Misusing SYPOP privilege --Alaa :)..! 19:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there's a lot of assuming bad faith! Please see this comment "intimidation"! --Alaa :)..! 20:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see it as an intimidation from both of you. You both are sysops in arwiki, you suddenly appeared in the conversation out of nowhere. So, the concept of good faith has its limits. We, the three of us, and the administrators here are already aware of how things are going. Kindly refrain from insulting our intelligence. I am seeking mediation, regardless of whether it goes on my side or not. I want this conflict to be resolved in a more conventional manner, outside the current approach. Riad Salih (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Riad Salih, What does it mean that we are both "sysops in arwiki"? There are 23 other sysops? Do you know how many ar-N sysops are on Commons? Also, did you know that I follow what written on Commons in Arabic language via the bot and scripts (for example; knowing that this comment in Arabic, it led me to the discussion)? I hope that when you discuss, you talk with policies and not about personal opinions and conclusions. Regarding that I'm not involved in the discussion, this is normal, because "Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party)". And I'm not a party of this discussion and I explained this to you on my talk page. --Alaa :)..! 20:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@علاء but why remove the file/facts disputed template? If it was changing categories, description or overwriting another version, sure reverting to the stable version would be fine but I see nothing wrong with highlighting that there is a dispute with the image. Also you can be involved even if you are not part of the discussion, if you know the person, you are considered to be involved. Bidgee (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bidgee, the editing war is based on the addition of this template, because it contains "The factual accuracy of this description or the file name is disputed."; this is evident from user undo and discussion on the talk page. Also, this editorial dispute moved from arwiki to Commons (Others participated in it). Can you please define what you mean by "if you know the person"? as I know a lot of users! --Alaa :)..! 20:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not requested any false historical claim. If Bassem has specific points to mention, I would be glad to respond to them individually.
However, Alaa cannot explain how they became involved in the discussion since they never participated in the Arabic Wikipedia talk or Commons. Immediately after Bassem's last revert, Alaa jumped in to file to block the talk. I did not initiate an edit war, but Bassem refused to engage in a conversation or provide explanations, instead choosing to revert the changes repeatedly.
Thank you, Alaa, for reminding us about the sysops and bots thing, but I am familiar with how it works. Your presence in this talk is not logical. -- Riad Salih (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Riad Salih, simple correction of what you mentioned "Immediately after Bassem's last revision, Alaa jumped in to block the talk", but Bassem edit at 18:43, then you at 19:20, finally mine at 19:31. Therefore, my attempt to stop the editing war based on adding the template came about ten minutes after your fourth revert. This explanation is for accuracy only.
In general, I welcome the participation of any other colleague, and I may be wrong, and therefore I welcome the correction of any mistake I made, as we all have a common goal. --Alaa :)..! 21:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I wish colleagues Bassem and Riad can complete the discussion in one place, so that we can follow it and help if there was any consensus. The discussion happens here and here. Thanks --Alaa :)..! 21:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My last response to Bassem is here User talk:باسم#Mediation Request
Alaa, I sincerely request that we avoid playing games. Both you and Bassem are closed sysops in Arabic Wikipedia, and we have never interacted on any talk page before.
The situation is clear and straightforward. Using your privileges as a means of intimidation is unnecessary and completely unacceptable. Riad Salih (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Riad Salih I will not answer the personal accusations, but can you explain where the "intimidation" happened? The only time I talked about "block" was on my talk page "If this happened in another project, both users would be blocked for violating the three-revert rule", as both of you made four reverts. In general, in order not to prolong the discussion further, I apologize if I expressed any kind of unintended "intimidation" or any comment that make you feel uncomfortable. --Alaa :)..! 22:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to notify me each time, and I have already expressed my concerns. If you wish to report the R3R violation, you are free to do so and report both me and Bassem. I am willing to accept any resulting block if it is in accordance with the rules. My objection lies in the misuse of your administrative tools, which were provided by the community to support impartial decision-making. There are no personal accusations, as you claim. Facts are facts. Riad Salih (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"But even the facts do not always tell the truth", I repeat what I mentioned previously "I welcome the participation of any other colleague, and I may be wrong, and therefore I welcome the correction of any mistake I made, as we all have a common goal". Once again, I will not respond to any personal accusations and conclusions. Also, please be precise in what you said that "we have never interacted on any talk page before", because I remember you writing to me on my talk page on Arabic Wikipedia several months ago, and also other responses that occurred between us on various pages on arwiki. --Alaa :)..! 22:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Riad Salih: Just because you believe Alaa protected m:The Wrong Version does not mean that Alaa is biased. You and باسم were edit warring. To stop the edit war, an admin protected the version of the page before the edit war started. Now, you need to discuss why you believe your version is right, on the talk page. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Mdaniels5757 I appreciate your passage here. m:The Wrong Version is a basic rule on all Wikimedia projects.
However, he intentionally selected his friend's version. I don't believe there can be any other explanation. If he wanted to maintain neutrality, he could have at least sent both of us a message or a warning to prevent an edit war.
I kindly request your assistance as a neutral party to mediate between us. Even if the outcome doesn't favor me, it's not a problem. What I dislike is the way they try handling things.(Cf : User talk:باسم#Mediation Request)
_
Alaa, the conversation has already been lengthy, and we don't want to spend another day going back and forth on it. The situation is clear and well-defined, and this will be my final response. We have never had a discussion on Wikimedia Commons, so please avoid turning around and backing up different versions to justify your actions. We are all aware of how things work. Let's save ourselves the time. You wanted to support your friend, that's fine, but it shouldn't involve your sysop tools.
Best regards. Riad Salih (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Riad Salih You need to stop assuming bad faith. He did not intentionally select "his friend"s version; he selected the version before the edit war. He is neutral and is not involved in the dispute. He did not need to send you both a message or a warning before stopping the edit war. If he blocked you both (as he could have), I would have expected a warning first, but he did not block any of you. He just stopped the edit war. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Riad Salih, in the future, if you actually want mediation, please bring an issue to COM:AN instead of COM:ANU, describe the situation as neutrally as possible, and link to where discussion is already taking place instead of starting a parallel discussion. "He accused me of falsifying history without presenting any concrete evidence and without engaging in a meaningful discussion. This accusation is entirely baseless, then he started an edit war" does not sound like a neutral statement of a disagreement, it sounds like an accusation. So which is it? Are you saying there is a problem with باسم's conduct or are you saying you want (and will accept) mediation? - Jmabel ! talk 02:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jmabel and Mdaniels, for your feedback, which I really appreciate.
I took the time to thank Bassem on arwiki for his translation and initiated a discussion. I wanted to be respectful, so I didn't want to overwrite the file directly (COM:CIV).
Bassem instead of engaging in a conversation, he chose to initiate an edit war. It would have been preferable if we could have discussed from the beginning, as he has now started a discussion on his talk page.
I felt the need for mediation because I perceived Alaa (assuming good faith can't be applied in this case) to be biased and favoring his friend's version, his sudden involvement lacked a logical explanation. I felt intimidated by this situation, and it seemed unfair. Sysop tools should be utilized in a neutral manner, and if anyone feels biased, they should refrain from participating in such conflicts. Therefore, I proposed mediation to avoid wasting time for all parties involved.
I am open to mediation. That is the primary purpose of this discussion. Jmabel or Mdaniels5757, I am extremely flexible and ready to engage in mediation, and I am even prepared to accept being blocked or warned if I have violated any rules, but it must be done fairly. Considering that English is not my native language, there may be some disarrangement of ideas or occasional contradictions, as Jmabel pointed out.
Otherwise, I wish you all a good day. Riad Salih (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, stop repeating the personal accusations and assuming bad faith with words like "biased", "favoring his friend's version", "lacked a logical explanation"..etc! Since I'm "biased" according to your opinion and personal imagination, I hope you respond to the comments of Mdaniels5757 and Jmabel -Thank you- for ending this discussion. --Alaa :)..! 19:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already made my point clear. If you believe there are personal accusations, I suggest that you initiate a new case. Riad Salih (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Engelberthumperdink[edit]

Engelberthumperdink (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Systematically insults users who nominate their files for deletion [6] [7], removes deletion templates [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] and so on. The user has multiple blocks for copyright violations. Quick1984 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Totally out of line. The other blocks were 7 years ago, so they don't have much bearing, but I'll block for a week as a reminder to the user that this conduct is not acceptable. - Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quick1984: thank you, by the way, for providing a solid set of diffs. Just "Дебил" in the first one as a way of addressing another user probably is enough for a block. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, "Дебил" is a "moron". Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Engelberthumperdink is now asking on his talk page to have his block lifted. It turns out that (as I did not previously know) he has been in conflict with a user whom I have had past issues with myself so I am probably not the admin to carry this forward. Will someone else please take over reviewing the block, etc., and say here that you are doing so? Jmabel ! talk 14:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jmabel, if you look at user's block log for similar violations in his home wiki, you will have no doubt this is his usual behavior, which he is not going to change. Moreover, I can’t understand the reason you consider his offense against one particular user a sufficient basis for the opportunity to insult two completely different ones and even consider it a basis for lifting the block. --Quick1984 (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Quick1984: at this point, I am literally the last administrator you should take this up with. I recused myself because Engelberthumperdink appears to be in conflict with someone with whom I also had a quite major conflict. If you want the details of that conflict, email me privately, I don't see any reason to rehash it publicly. I'm actually a bit amazed to see that the person in question is still a user in good standing. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why you keep insulting me and I received a notification about civility? This is the posture of sysop?
      Sounds weird that A.Savin said nothing here, but took actions there, and your very aggressive posture is not reprehend.
      I am not in conflict, he took some actions to retaliate the blocked, and choose one image that I uploaded under a specific context, not even my photo, I don't care, I just saw the context and react to it, he was already blocked when I react to the deletion request, it is a wiki, we all can check.
      And clearly Alexander took the action with no discussion, and had issues on this.
      It is quite weird you lift your action, just because the user did something that could potentially "hurt" me. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Isn't the username inappropriate? It is obviously related to singer Engelbert Humperdinck Bedivere (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Or the composer whose name he took. But I think given that one person (the singer) took another's (the composer's) as a pseudonym, someone else taking it as a user name and (presumably deliberately) spelling it wrong is not a problem. - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton are you actually asking me to seek sanctions against you? The issue is years in the past, and I've chosen to avoid you, including recusing myself from this matter, rather than pursue sanctions. I don't see any point to doing so at this time, but if you really insist, I suppose I could go back through ancient history and make my case. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Present: "I'm actually a bit amazed to see that the person in question is still a user in good standing." This is not avoid.

        And tag me in his talk page is not also avoid.
        Moreover, I am the one that requested to the community to prevent you interact with me, you made a movement to prevent that to happen.
        Persue is the word here, since "ancient history".
        Last msg here, I already gave to 2 cents.- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Good block. Taivo (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

66.90.190.251[edit]

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

Vandalism [17], [18], [19] 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 03:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also 66.90.190.250 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 04:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
66.90.190.250 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 04:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Both blocked for 1 week. Did I miss a third IP? Ellywa (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too many similar images[edit]

Rasitha nellickal (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  - Could you look at this users uploads? There are too many similar images. Is it ok to upload such similar images? AntanO 09:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem. There are perhaps too many images of one dog -- no big deal, happens all the time -- but taking a dozen reasonably good pictures of a somewhat unusual plant is welcome (as would be other opinions!).
@AntanO: when you report someone here, you should tell them on their user talk page. I'll do that for you this time. - Jmabel ! talk 14:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not report, but clarification. AntanO 20:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still good to let people know your discussing them. Even if the post isn't a report or takes place somewhere else besides ANU. Although you should notify a user that your discussing them at ANU regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oomlaoot[edit]

Oomlaoot (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  does nothing but unexplained flag/coat of arms file reverts. Ignores talk and in the penultimate case (File:Coat of arms of Bavaria.svg) reverted rapidly back and forth for no reason, which leads me to believe it's another account of this person, who never did anything else in their now almost two years here. There were other one-off accounts with similar MO in the meantime (and some probably in good faith) but this one seems more persistent. TFerenczy (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:PieterDS[edit]

Persistent copyvio uploader. Warning at their talk page had no effect. Jcb (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcb: I notified the user on their talk page as required per the top of this page. Please remember to do so next time. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nosee.jpg[edit]

The deletion discussion of this file has been vandalized by the uploader. Can you see and close this older request please? 186.175.1.151 11:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the deletion request. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:JürgenStrecker[edit]

COM:PORN user Dronebogus (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked as VOA, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oyaid[edit]

COM:PENIS user Dronebogus (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any action here is needed (apart from deletions); their last edit was back in December 2022. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn’t notice that Dronebogus (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A formal warning would be good to place, though. --SHB2000 (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000: So warned.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jeff G.! --SHB2000 (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iyassu2008[edit]

Iyassu2008 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user is uploading copyvios from Getty Images via crosswiki upload. Stepro (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Final warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024-05-01 Karmann-Ghia-VW Heckansicht.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I uploaded a version of that Karmann-car with a fake-numberplate. Could you please delete the first version?

same topic here: File:2024-05-01 Karmann-Ghia-VW.jpg , please delete the first version, too.

Thank you very much in advance. Regards, Wikisympathisant (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikisympathisant ✓ Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still see the plate number here... Yann (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

problematic uploads by User:XxakixX[edit]

[20] We can leave the debate over whether Commons should be hosting creeper shots of possibly underaged girls for another day, as these are all clearly watermarked with a copyright notice and therefore should not be hosted on Commons. Just Step Sideways (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Step Sideways: They appear to be correctly licensed on Flickr. Are you saying that you have reason to think the "NiteLiter" account on Flickr is not legitimately the account of the photographer? the account's URL (https://www.flickr.com/photos/joe-merritt/) matches the name on the watermark. There is no contradiction between a copyright-notice (watermark or otherwise) and a CC license: you can issue a CC license only if you have a copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of repeating myself: if we delete all copyrighted photos on Commons, about 55,000 of my uploads need to be deleted, because I absolutely own the copyright on them and certainly reserve the right to sue anyone who uses them without proper attribution and won't fix that when contacted. I don't use watermarks, but a watermark like this is a perfectly valid mechanism to make it nearly impossible to fail to give credit. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scope issue is a whole different matter, but that would be a normal DR. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Agree with Jmabel about the watermark and statement of ownership being no reason for deletion. (Creative Commons licenses are a form of copyright. While the "c" symbol more commonly indicates all rights reserved, in context it is clear that is not the photographer's intention, since a more specific cc license is specified.) From a quick look, both Commons user XxakixX and the Flickr photographer mentioned seem to have good in scope contributions combined with what seems blatant voyeurism. I agree that "creeper" shots are a problem, though off hand am unsure of the best way to minimize them beyond deletion requests. ("Don't be a creeper" seems a good guideline, but may not be very useful without specific definitions.) So I *do* think there should be some discussion "over whether Commons should be hosting creeper shots", but the issue is wider than User:XxakixX -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Oppose any action per Jmabel (the DR can be dealt with separately). I do not think there is any specific behavioral issue that needs to be discussed here any further. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just started a mass deletion request for some of these images at Commons:Deletion requests/Creepshots uploaded by User:XxakixX (I don't think that descriptor is unfair here) but there's hundreds if not thousands of these images, most not included in the DR (as I have not gone through hundreds of the uploads) and they're still going. I left a message on xakixX's user page but the uploads have thus far continued unabated. David Fuchs (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that David, we can go that route. I admit I apparently jumped to certain conclusions upon seeing the watermarks. Just Step Sideways (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024-05-01 230SL-Mercedes closed.jpg[edit]

Hello,

first I have to apologize: I uploaded the pict named above from wrong folder, so ot does not have an anonymous numberplate. Please remove the first version. Thank you very much in advance. Regards, Wikisympathisant (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikisympathisant: FYI, this is the wrong board, as there is no user issue here. In such a case, nominate the file for deletion. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no: If I nominate for deletion, as far as I know, that takes much time ... And the new file need's a new name, doesn't it? Yesterday Mdaniels5757 16:17, 2 May 2024 (see above) deleted the wrong version quite fast. So from my point of view it is the right place. And ofcourse I will try to avoid such mistakes, this is not a habit. KR Wikisympathisant (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Speedy deletions with G7 as reason are normally processed very fast. If you add that you only want the old version hidden and not the current version deleted this is also possible with a comment in addition to the G7 statement. GPSLeo (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still see the plate number here... Yann (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: looks like he made up a fake but plausible one. - Jmabel ! talk 01:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
exact, a fake. Regards, Wikisympathisant (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, suggested personalized faux nameplate for the future: FAUX.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iyassu2008 (2)[edit]

Iyassu2008 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

The user uploaded a copyrighted billboard, despite having been informed copyrighted material uploads are not acceptable on Commons. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeEngineer: I think you were looking for the word "warned".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jgannon03[edit]

User:Jgannon03 uploads lots of pictures of persons (presumably ASUW students) which are not in Commons:Scope and not necessarily published under commons-compatible license. GeorgR (de) (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GeorgR (de)  Not done Warned. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Billy Hathorn[edit]

Context: [21]

This user is the subject of both a community ban and a checkuser block at en.wp, and the account has probably been compromised, according to en.wp checkusers. They are importing issues from en.wp to Commons and deliberately violating copyrights. In short, a troll. Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already done globally locked. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=874429623"