Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Note

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

Hi, I think we have a problem with Enhancing999 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

1. First edit-warring with Lukas Beck over deletion of Category:1922 in rail transport in Switzerland (see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/10/Category:1877 in rail transport in Switzerland, now recreated, and User talk:L. Beck#Vandalism accusations for changes you seek to implement).
2. Then reporting Lukas Beck on ANU: [1].
3. Then this discussion, of which Jim said that it was completely out of place.
4. Also bothering me on my talk page here.
5. Finally this discussion on the VP.
6. And last, but not least, removing other people comments when they don't like it.

Could someone please explain to Enhancing999 that we don't keep empty categories, eventually with stronger terms? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999: Your behavior in this matter is utterly unacceptable. Cut it out immediately. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enhancing999 continues here. Yann (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support A block is certainly overdue. This user LOVES to report other users on COM:ANU often for void reasons, and without much attempt to discuss first. Already the fact that they didn't comment anything on this complaint is telling a lot. --A.Savin 19:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• {{s}} all the reasons above and my own experience with them. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 21:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Decided to withhold my opinion instead despite my encounter with this user, I've no interest in supporting a block at this time. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 14:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Uncomfortable questions can be a good thing up to a certain amount, but I've also seen Enhancing999 beyond the limit, causing disruption. --Krd 05:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose some sanction might be in order, but a block seems excessive to me. Regardless, it would be a good idea if Enhancing999 were to acknowledge that the consensus is clearly against them on where to draw the line for keeping empty categories, and that they should just plain let others (who are overwhelmingly in consensus with each other) make those decisions. - Jmabel ! talk 10:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm obviously open to discuss this (even opened the relevant CfD). I think Yann is well aware that their action isn't supported by current Commons policy as stated, at least by 17 Oct, 19:54, so it seems to me that they are using their adminship (by prematurely closing discussions, deleting categories, refusing to participate in the discussions) to force an editorial issue. Coming from an administrator that mainly works on copyright issues, this seems even more problematic.
   ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is only a small difference. It's not like @Yann clearly violated any guidelines. In fact, various administrators have pointed out to you in various places which rule you are referring to here. And there seems to be a general consensus about this decision. Why can't you submit to that? Lukas Beck (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support per above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• About point 1:
  • I doubt I edited Category:1922 in rail transport in Switzerland after a speedy tag was placed. To me, this appears to be false reporting by Yann.
  • About 1877: I followed the steps outlined on the speedy deletion tag to convert this to a regular discussion. Lukas then went on to readd the speedy tag. Admin review at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:L._Beck concluded that Lukas action wasn't appropriate. Despite the ongoing discussion, Yann proceeded with deleting the category. Admin review concluded that Yann's action was premature. In the meantime, Lukas recreated the category.
  • About the personal attacks: Admin review at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:L._Beck concluded that Lukas personal attack should result in a block.
• About 2: Admin review at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:L._Beck concluded that Lukas action wasn't appropriate and their personal attacks should stop. Somehow Yann ignored that review and closed the report despite being personally involved in the matter.
• About 3: The undeletion request followed the relevant steps. It's unclear based on what that conclusion was reached. I'm working on having that clarified. Admin view in that discussion was that they wouldn't have deleted the category.
• About 4: I rephrased the question twice, but Yann didn't answer despite responding. It appears they can't explain which Wikimedia Commons policy their action was based on. If they feel bothered by being questioned about their admin actions, the remedy would be to not take any admin actions.
• About 5: It's strange that Yann doesn't want a discussion on user expectations on how admin actions are explained to take place and makes it into a discussion about himself. As an admin, they aren't even particularly concerned by the question for user expectations. It would be good to have more views there.
• About 6: As Yann restored the comment, I added a note about its off-topic nature. The comment is indeed not related to the general question asked in the discussion. I should probably have asked an admin to remove it instead. I don't think Yann's comment in that discussion is on topic either; somehow they keep repeating an answer to a question they aren't being asked. In any case, neither explained how their comments would relate to the general topic.

As much as I value Yann's knowledge on copyright, I don't think their approach to categorization discussions is sound. Admin review already deemed their closure as premature. I had the same impression with Yann's actions about Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Cross & Feather Architecture where they didn't even bother to comment and note their action. It lead even more confusion among two fairly new editors.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it is very important for me to mention again that I have never insulted or discriminated against this user. I don't have a good opinion of him, which shouldn't be surprising given his history, and I can and will express my opinion here. And the statement that the user has a bad character is a factual observation that is confirmed time and time again. And as @A.Savin said, you should be able to take criticism. A block here would send a very bad signal when you look at what it means for future communication here on Commons. Should you no longer be allowed to criticize colleagues who are obviously behaving incorrectly, no matter how objectively? If so, I see no future for this project, which thrives on mutual exchange. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About 3: You're not being completely honest here. Not every administrator agreed with you and no administrator saw the need to restore the useless categories. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Enhancing999 is referring to me, 3 is missing context: I said that I usually don't delete empty categories in a sequence, but I also did not see a need to restore it. I pointed out that the category could be recreated once it was no longer empty (or I'd be willing to undelete upon request when it is not empty). Abzeronow (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, we should not reopen the discussion about the deleted categories here. We conducted this in a variety of places and always came to the same result. This is about how the user deals with this situation and towards his colleagues. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From your response I do not see the you are aware of the problem. Do you understand what behaviour is problematic and do try to avoid this in the future? GPSLeo (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, point 6 was an error. I should have noted that I consider the comment off-topic and asked an admin to remove it.

As a non-admin, I can't really check if the report (point 1.) about the 1922 category is accurate or not, so maybe you can check and confirms to me (and all other non admins), if Yann's allegation is accurate or false.

If the - what I consider - continued personal attacks by Lukas Beck (also in this thread) are acceptable, I can take a note of that so that we all may feel free to do so as well. Personally, I don't think their comment even in this thread are acceptable and an admin should consider opening another thread on them.

If it's generally considered inacceptable to request undeletion of elements deleted by Yann, I'd be happy to comply with this.

If the conversion of a speedy deletion to regular discussion was correctly handled in this case, please state so, so that we can update our procedures.

BTW, can you provide a link to the policies that may back up Yann's deletion decisions.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the topic has been discussed and we have referred you to the relevant guidelines several times. Just re-read the old discussions or look at the speedy deletion guidelines. This clearly states that meaningless categories can be deleted quickly and which category is to be rated as meaningless and which is not is in the hands of the decisive administrators. And to the previous point, all I can say is that your unacceptable actions are causing counter-reactions, which are logically directed against you. Nobody should insult anyone here, but you should be able to tolerate headwinds up to a certain point. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question wasn't addressed to you, L., but I note that in this thread twice L. comments on that point without being able to provide a working wikilink.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit war on Category:1877 in rail transport in Switzerland. GPSLeo (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GPSLeo: So you confirm that Yann's report about Category:1922 in rail transport in Switzerland was false?

(L. edit-warring over 1877 and similar was already reported at #User:L._Beck above and closed, by Yann BTW).
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support block; the discussion above doesn't convince me much. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User: Verdy p (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: For years, I have been railing against incomplete deletion requests, which are caused by malformed use of {{Delete}} templates and lack of follow-through, and which are populating subcats of Category:Incomplete deletion requests. This problem spurred the creation of that category 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC), over 17 years ago, and my tracking of it 18:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC), over three years ago. As a precedent, ColorfulSmoke was blocked 17:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC) by Mdaniels5757 with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page", pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 29#ColorfulSmoke, and Alex Neman was blocked 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC) by Yann with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page" pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 34#Alex Neman. Verdy p made this edit on or before 23 November 2022 (UTC): including a {{Delete}} tag as the reason. They also made this second edit 11:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC): including a {{Delete}} tag on the subpage. I reminded them of their mistakes and warned them in this edit 13:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC) and edits leading to it. They neglected to respond to my warning per User talk:Verdy p/archive19#Reminder, and made such an edit again in this edit 09:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC): again including a {{Delete}} tag on the subpage. Please block them longer, as they already have four blocks on record.[reply]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC):[reply]

I posted the request, but I had not the time to complete it because while editing it, you added that and caused conflict. Given you did that work in "emergency" I had nothing to do more after your instantaneus action. You are just too hurry.' I have not ignored any instruction (and remember that instructions change over time, so I need to check them as well before continuing). Also your claim that I did not respond is wrong (including in your old request done years ago). I have not ignored them but people are not expected to reply instantly to everything, especially if they are offline at that time. Everyone should be allowed several days to post a response to any message, I am not a bot, and not a slave!

You links above show that you've done that extremely rarely: Less that once a year! I have done many other delete requests, and completed them properly, before you detected anything. So why are you complaining here? All was done correctly in appropriate time. If ever something is missing this is an omission that may have been caused by other more urgent edits needed elsewhere, or because there was a temporary network/database problem delaying any further action. You have never complained directly to me about that. Only here. Please keep your calm and be fair.

My request was valid even if it was still not complete and took action immediately on it (and made because the request was done to undo abusive edits (spreading fake facts in many places) that were done by an IP user from Asia (on multiple wikis) polluting Japanese topics everywhere (that Asian IP user uses various IP addresses using his mobile; I am checking now all what he did recepently here in Commons; but there are other wikis as well were he pushed repeated polution with fake edit comments like "love"). verdy_p (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Verdy p: I corrected your edit in this edit 10:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC), a full 71 minutes after your edit. You did not take into account the many edits I have made to user talk pages regarding incomplete deletion requests (look for the words "warning" and "reminder" in the Edit Summaries).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During those 71 minutes you did not ping me at all, did not contact me. I had a neighbour visiting me. I was gone to bring him to funerals of his father (he has no vehicle to attend there in time), so I was absent for a couple of hours to bring him and make some shopping, before eating and returning home. During these 71 minutes I did not edit anything and did not even read any page on this wiki, to get any notification (the internal logs can easily prove that, I can also prove it by my purchase ticket in a mall and at my bank to get money, and another one to buy a lunch and take a coffea, but this is my normal personal life).

Really, read above: I'm not a slave working 24/7, I'm not a bot like what you operate here for such "railed" maintenance you want to do; and if you want to do things faster, you can do that, but there was absolutely no emergency and during that time you did not even take the time to contact me. I have seen nothing when you were back, except to see that you had completed the work that required no further action from me. Also please don't mix me with other unrelated facts concerning randomly chosen other users: your justifications above are completely unfair and causes just pollution: such arguments are built for infering malicious bias).

Even if I made an error or ommission, or if this was caused by some technical reason, the delay was caused by external factors, consider I'm a human, not a device or service supposed to available nearly 100% of time. That's now the way to cooperate (even respected companies and fovernments give reasonable delays and do not warranty any action during that time or compensation after that). I have not abused the system (and my actions on this wiki are very clear, I've not ignored anything and did not act to introduce any massive "pollution", these edits were correctly followed manually one by one and in correct time; time is also always needed to allow further checks). Unlike bots (including yours), We (humans) all work incrementally by small successive steps. verdy_p (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Verdy p: You forgot to ping me. During those 71 minutes, I was busy sleeping and getting ready for my workday. I corrected your edit as soon as I noticed your edit, pinging you in the process. Then, I researched our previous interactions and determined that further contact with you about this exact issue of creating DR subpages including [[t2|delete}} would be fruitless, as I had already warned you about it nearly two years ago. Then, after more preparations for my workday (including travel and further research), I posted the above in a new section. You responded above after four minutes, before I had a chance to post {{subst:Discussion-notice}}. Note, I have created well over a thousand pages in Commons namespace, most being well-formed DR subpages.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And do so what? We were both busy duringh these 71 minutes. So what's the point for contactuig this board as the only form of "interaction"? Your own history and my own demonstrates exactly the opposite of all what you argued and invented just above, mixing me with also other people. And taking pseudo arguments that are not minutes apart, but several years apart (and then inventing your conclusion, as if I had never replied and noticed your concern if I was ever really involved) is just complete non-sense. You invent your own rules for your preferences. And the only form of "cooperation" taken here, is just a way to harass and ennoy me, and admins or other visitors of this page; adding another set of new lies and invention in your last response, scrambling the chronologies of events, and mixing unrelated people, just makes your arguments above completely pointless. verdy_p (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buckshot06 nominated three graphics I created 9 years ago based on the then best available information (File:Egyptian Army - First Field Army.png, File:Egyptian Army - Second Field Army.png, File:Egyptian Army -Third Field Army.png). Any time an editor writes to me on my talkpage on commons or on the English wiki that one of the graphics I created needs to be updated I update the graphics within days. User:Buckshot06 didn't bother to write me on my talkpages, he just nominated the graphics for deletion with the demand: "User:Noclador should contact me so that I can give him a correct diagram". This is an egregious abuse of deletion requests to blackmail another user. If User:Buckshot06 wishes to cooperate on correcting the graphics, he can write me on my talkpage. Dozens of other editors have done so over time and I have always worked with them on improving/correcting the graphics. None of them abused the deletion function, none of them tried to blackmail me. I am willing to improve/correct the graphics, but I will not be blackmailed. Noclador (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has closed the three deletion requests as 'keep'. @Noclador and @Buckshot06, {{Factual accuracy}} and {{Datasource missing}} exist for this situation I believe. Commander Keane (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Commander Keane for your quick response. With best regards, Noclador (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Keane, thank you for your advisory. Dear Noclador, you are doing amazing work north and east of Egypt and I had no intention whatsoever of offending you. I regret that my message appeared insulting. I will write a full explanation on your talkpage. None the less however, as the Egyptian Institute for Studies' page at الجيش المصري: التكوين وخرائط الانتشار (in ar). المعهد المصري للدراسات (2018-05-17). Retrieved on 2020-04-15. shows, the depiction of three armies each supervising several corps is very incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Army_(United_Arab_Republic) shows how First Army was a designation used for Syria, not Egypt. Kind regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06 you must not make a speed deletion request for a file that was recently kept in a regular deletion request. GPSLeo (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers GPS Leo. I think you understand the problem here - the data is factually incorrect. The First Army was a United Arab Republic body located in Syria that disappeared 50+ years ago. What is the correct procedure for getting a file deleted on the basis that (a) there is no data supporting it; and (b) much more reliable data as of 2018 is now available at الجيش المصري: التكوين وخرائط الانتشار (in ar). المعهد المصري للدراسات (2018-05-17). Retrieved on 2020-04-15.? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou GPS Leo. I have just read your comment repealing the speedy delete - I have to nominate the file for deletion through the full process again. I have just done that, copying out Noclador's request of 2020 again. Many thanks for your assistance. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06: it still seems to me that a deletion request is excessive when the uploader/creator is available and open to discussion of possible factual correction. Don't use an atom bomb to take out an anthill. - Jmabel ! talk 12:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message Jmabel. The First Egyptian Army *never existed*. It does not exist. There is no reliable data or information available for the organisation of the First Army, located in Syria, of the United Arab Republic of the 1960s. The file needs to be deleted. As regards the remainder of the Egyptian armies and military districts, I said I would engage Noclador on his talkpage, and you are encouraged to contribute to the discussion there at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noclador. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OGGESKARRE (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user uploaded a great number of non existant hurricane path of fictional Oskia Hurricane Season. They should be all deleted and the user warned or even blocked. Pierre cb (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Indeffed for crosswiki vandalism. Everything deleted CSD G3 (though F10 may have been more appropriate). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New user who immediately uploaded File:Logo Donal Bebek.jpg, which has been uploaded and deleted several times now. Obvious sockpuppet or meatpuppet of the other uploaders.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Other previously deleted copyvios. I've given 31 hour block; no objection to changing to indefinite if evidence is sockpuppet of previously blocked account. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User: Bruno pnm ars (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: For years, I have been railing against incomplete deletion requests, which are caused by malformed use of {{Delete}} templates and lack of follow-through, and which are populating subcats of Category:Incomplete deletion requests. This problem spurred the creation of that category 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC), over 17 years ago, and my tracking of it 18:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC), over three years ago. As a precedent, ColorfulSmoke was blocked 17:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC) by Mdaniels5757 with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page", pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 29#ColorfulSmoke, and Alex Neman was blocked 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC) by Yann with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page" pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 34#Alex Neman. Bruno pnm ars made this edit 9 August 2024 (UTC): including a {{Delete}} tag as the reason. I reminded them of their mistake and warned them in this edit 12:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC). They neglected to respond per User talk:Bruno pnm ars#File:Cover of Massafghanistan by Kid Yugi.jpg, and made such an edit again in these edits 07:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC): again including a live {{Delete}} tag in the reason and compounding their error by including a live {{Dw no source since}} tag in the reason. I reported them in a section since archived to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 39#Bruno pnm ars, but not actioned. Then, they made these edits ending 13:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC): including a {{Delete}} tag as the reason; leaving in the right curly braces; and removing the subpage, year, month, and day tags. Please block them, at least from filespace.[reply]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntwo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user claims own work for most of his uploads but does not provide META data on photos and other works seems from websites, one of them (File:Native range of Sabal palmetto.png) is supposed to be from USGS but link is dead. Can an administrator validate uploads. Pierre cb (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pierre cb The recent photos from Anna Maria Island were taken with my DJI Mini 2 on October 19, 2024. I uploaded all to an imgur album as an intermediary, which unfortunately strips metadata. My understanding was metadata is not necessary for Wikimedia own work uploads. I can amend this if necessary.

The Roystonea regia native range maps are my own work. I outlined a best approximation of Roystonea regia distribution based on information in Zona, the Institute for Regional Conservation, and my own satellite analysis. This compiles Roystonea regia natural range data across the Caribbean and Florida in a manner which has not been done prior. The final base map (no data) is the same used in all maps produced in Little 1976 (public domain). However, all work in estimating and illustrating the native range is my own. This is the focus of the map. If attribution for the base map is seen as necessary, I can provide it. However, the range project is my own work - as one can find my upload predates any other references to the image, and the Little 1976 Roystonea elata range map has no content overlap whatsoever. I also have an extensive post history on Palmtalk under the same username with components of my analysis for Roystonea regia, which I believe provide further evidence here.

The Sabal palmetto distribution map's link has been amended to a non-dead version, thank you for bringing this to my attention. Note that the map is actually an expansion of the Little 1976 map (which only includes range data for the United States). I follow a similar methodology to the Roystonea regia map for Cuba and the Bahamas, however, because I maintain Little's palmetto range in the US I do not consider this an own work and attribute it to Little. Ubuntwo (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filming 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) PR, copyvio reuploads after warnings. Drakosh (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drakosh: I warned them and notified of them of this section for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No activity after you warned him/her. Taivo (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. What do I need to do to make the photos available on the portal again? Filming 1 (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photos belong to me, originally they were only on Wikipedia. Recently, they have also been added to articles on other sites. Filming 1 (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Filming 1: Then please send or post permission via VRT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I sent a request to restore the photos Filming 1 (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThisWebsiteIsHateful v3 (talk · contribs) account appears to exist only to make bad deletion requests. Sowing a lot of confusion as people take them seriously. Jmabel ! talk 14:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they made 5 nominations, with two having some merit. That said, we should certainly be skeptical of an account called "Thiswebsiteishateful" created just to start DRs. CU is above my paygrade, but is that combination of disruptive username + DR-only account sufficient to run a checkuser? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Blocked as inappropriate username. Clearly Disruptive usernames, this includes outright trolling or personal attacks, or otherwise clearly disruptive intentions. Yann (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ptrump16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

After I provided a critical review of his photos on the Quality images candidates page, he became upset and has been repeatedly posting on my talk page, making personal attacks, including calling me "lonely," and questioning my competence as a reviewer. Today, he started adding quite rather random reviews on QIC page, I have noticed that one of pictures promoted by him belongs to very similar user, that uses the same camera, software, have the same subject of photos. So, I have created a check user request. While I'm still waiting for answer from any checkuser, Ptrump16 started to vote en masse in retaliation under my nominations and reviews on the QIC page. Thereby I am asking for assistance here ---- Jakubhal 17:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ptrump16 has been indeffed by User:Krd for socking. Abzeronow (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Persistently uploading copyright violations materials (and also ignoring warning) and using this materials to replace the existing non-copyrighted infobox image at sister project en:Kim Jae-young (actor) multiple times. They are clearly not here to contribute constructively to the collective Wikimedia Projects as per their comments at my talk page in English Wikipedia when they're editing logged out hence I don't expect any differences in their behaviour here either. I had already made a separate report at English Wikipedia for their actions there, see reporting. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Paper9oll: is "They are clearly here to contribute constructively to the collective Wikimedia Projects" sarcasm? It seems to go opposite to what you are otherwise saying. - Jmabel ! talk 20:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops just realise my typo, meant to say the opposite i.e. "not here". — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. User is warned, all uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henjiru (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royiswariii (talk • contribs) 18:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persistently uploading copyright logos File:Hunker-Logo-RGB-Default-Color.svg, File:Foodie-logo-negative.svg and File:Foodie-logo.svg, create a page and add it on en:Hunger (website) and en:Foodie (website). Royiswariii (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royiswariii: While the user needs to learn proper licensing and categorization, these aren't copyvios - they fall cleanly under {{PD-textlogo}}. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. As all his/her uploads are textlogos, copyright is not violated here. Taivo (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider blocking the following accounts for being sockpuppets of each other and being vandalism-only accounts (all their edits are vandalism):

• DLOEI2536 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• พันจ่าอากาศโทวิศิษฎ์ ทองโม้ (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Thank you! -- YURi (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]