Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
4nn1l2 (talk | contribs)
115,681 edits
Line 324: Line 324:
Everything is copyvio. --[[User:Patrick Rogel|Patrick Rogel]] ([[User talk:Patrick Rogel|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Everything is copyvio. --[[User:Patrick Rogel|Patrick Rogel]] ([[User talk:Patrick Rogel|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
:{{done}} Uploads nuked and user blocked for 3 days. Thanks --<span style="font-family:Times; color:#219">'''[[User:Ruthven|Ruthven]]'''</span> <span style="color:#0070EE"><small>([[User talk:Ruthven|<span style="color:#101090">msg</span>]])</small></span> 09:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
:{{done}} Uploads nuked and user blocked for 3 days. Thanks --<span style="font-family:Times; color:#219">'''[[User:Ruthven|Ruthven]]'''</span> <span style="color:#0070EE"><small>([[User talk:Ruthven|<span style="color:#101090">msg</span>]])</small></span> 09:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

== LTA:ISECHIKA 201906 ==

* [[special:redirect/user/7915311]]
* [[special:redirect/user/7915320]]

Please block and nuke uploads per [[:ja:LTA:ISECHIKA]].--[[User:Roy17|Roy17]] ([[User talk:Roy17|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:03, 27 June 2019

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU

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
113, 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

  • 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. {{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.

myexbackcoach.com / Lee Wilson spam

Three separate users have recently uploaded stock images with text relating to "limerence". The descriptions of these images have all contained links promoting "myexbackcoach.com". The owner of that site is a guy named Lee Wilson, who has a background in SEO. Given that, I suspect they aren't done yet, so it would be nice if the web site could be added to a black list. Since it is difficult to imagine that there will ever be an image which can illustrate the concept of "limerence", perhaps File:limerence.jpg and File:limerence.png could be blacklisted?

Accounts involved:

Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: File:Limerence.png: Clear case of DW w missing source. Google doesn't find it but Yandex and TinEye have a lot of hits. Original image seems to be from shutterstock. In addition clear case of spam, linking to the same web address. Here indirectly by one more hop via yt. --Achim (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: File deleted and users blocked per spam only accounts. Btw: Registrant's info @ publicdomainregistry.com/whois is hidden via privacyprotect.org. --Achim (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Achim55: Thanks. The latest account is User:Limerthing089. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, thanks for notifying. --Achim (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Achim55: And now User:Dayfater. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. --Achim (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Achim55: Thanks. The newest account is User:Honeyshahq. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And look - here's one from 2017: File:Get your ex girlfriend.png! World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done for both. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just for fun, here's an even older one from a different "relationship expert": File:How-to-get-your-ex-back-tips.gif. This one is too simple to be copyrighted, but the link to the spammy domain was left (even though it wasn't the actual source). I fixed it. Looks like Lee Wilson just borrowed his shtick form someone else. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And one more, from 2017: File:Get.png. Looks like spammers infested Commons long ago. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reneh3790

Reneh3790 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

At Own collages with OWN PHOTOS Reneh3790 says quite clearly his collages are made up of their own photos. Generally I'd just give you a {{End of copyvios}} (which I already had) and call it a day. You couldn't be bothered to enter author information in UploadWizard, well, that happens, here's a warning and do better next time. Purposefully claiming your uploads are really really really own work, that's another thing.

I call your bluff and raise 200.

File:Collage Ciudad de Quetzaltenango.jpg

File:Villa Nueva Guatemala - Collage.jpg

File:Collage Guatemala City.jpg

File:Collage Guatemala City.jpg can now actually be kept (I cropped the all rights reserved image and added the sources), but obviously this ain't no own work. We will never be able to trust any "own work" claim from this user. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @JoKalliauer, Patrick Rogel. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Alexis Jazz: , and I do not trust Reneh3790's rigorous own-claims, but I'm feeling to inexperienced (in user-problems) to suggest anything.
There might be one/two >>Own collages with OWN PHOTOS<< that's true, and therefore claims that (s)he is right at this one collage. But I do not looked that much into it as Alexis. But it is quite clear that several/most uploads are not Self-photographed .
Anyhow, maybe if all doubt pictures (s)he uploaded get deleted, we might believe his/her warning and (s)he might won't upload anything again (even without blocking).
Also blocking seems reasonable to me, but if we expect no (illegal) Media will get uploaded anymore, I do not see any need/sense of blocking him/her. But if something happens again it is then even more obvious.
I think the Deletionrequest (DR) is important and I personally would wait till it is decided, even-though the DR seems obvious to me.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 15:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking is preventative, not punitive. Reneh3790 has not uploaded any files since the mass nomination and the final warning on 17 June, and received only a single copyvio notice before that date. Given that copyvios have currently stopped, and that they have implicitly retired, we don't seem to have adequate evidence/basis for a preventative block. Indeed, a final warning was just issued; it would be bizarre then to block when no copyvios have been uploaded subsequent thereto. Block if and when another copyvio is uploaded. Эlcobbola talk 16:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elcobbola: more copyvios would obviously be a reason to block. The issue here is: say that Reneh3790 uploads some more photos, maybe with metadata this time. Even if we find no hard proof they are copyvio, we'd pretty much have to delete them anyway (unless we get OTRS permission I guess) because the user is known to outright lie about authorship. Well, as long as they stay retired I suppose it won't matter. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, at any given time, a substantial portion of the images in Category:Copyright violations are ones for which the uploader has claimed "own"--an identical outright lie. We don't block these users until they demonstrate a failure to respond to appropriate warning. This is because "blocks are a last resort." (COM:BLOCK) Reneh3790 has effectively received only one indication (!!!) of a problem--a copyvio nomination on 25 November 2018 (Reneh3790 had not edited since 13 June 2019, and all other notifications came on on 17 June 2019)--and has not uploaded a copyvio since the final warning. Until we have evidence that the final warning (the "second to last resort") is being disregarded, we do not need the last resort of a block. Эlcobbola talk 16:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I would close it here for now and wait for the next uploads
  1. If it is a correct upload: Great
  2. If it is a copyright-violation: According to @Elcobbola and Alexis Jazz: this will most likely lead to a block
  3. if it is unclear: It is in my opinin Reneh3790's "work" to gain trust again, and therfore without Commons:OTRS this will/should lead at least to a DR.
On User_talk:Reneh3790 we have a link to this page, and therfore if something happens again this disussion will be "exhumed"/found again.
I think we should write this conclusion onto their talkpage, that they know it's there buisness to gain trust again, and only obvious (with complete sources/permissions) Media will be accepted.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 16:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JoKalliauer: sounds reasonable. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Elcobbola: a substantial portion of the images in Category:Copyright violations are ones for which the uploader has claimed "own"--an identical outright lie.
No. Just no. Dropping some files on UploadWizard and mindlessly clicking "next" is bad, but not nearly as bad as going to the talk page of someone who tagged your files for deletion and typing out the words "why don't you let me upload my OWN Photos I am taking.", knowing full well this is false. Is this really the same to you? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reneh3790's comments were about the collages. It is entirely possible they think cropping the source images makes the crops theirs ("OWN PHOTOS") and that combining those crops into collages makes the compilation theirs ("Own collages"). This would me an honest mistake from ignorance of derivaitve works, which is very common. Your comparison is disingenuous, and your comments are ridiculous (a false claim of "own" is equally disruptive whether done deliberately or mindlessly--a copyvio is a copyvio, and knows not intent.) Эlcobbola talk 17:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Elcobbola: I'm all for playing devil's advocate, but even I wouldn't try to defend this one. (at least not with your strategy) You even try to turn this on me, calling my comparison "disingenuous" and my comments "ridiculous". Are you for real? You say "Reneh3790's comments were about the collages". Well that would have been an excellent defense, were it not for the fact Reneh3790 said "why don't you let me upload my OWN Photos I am taking". Exactly how does one take a collage? And btw, Patrick Rogel had only tagged the three collages which I analyzed here. So that's what he's claiming to be the author of. And you make no difference in intent? Even when the act is identical, intent determines consequences. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 20:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Rogel

"Patrick Rogel" marked a photo that I was given express permission to use by the owner "for deletion" - His "talk" channel appears to have similar complaints...

To whom it may concern,

I am fairly new to Wikipedia. I have spent the better part of 3 years contributing quality content to 'genius.com' and have just been promoted to Senior Editor of One West Magazine - I say that only to preface my experience with citing sources, my track record for accuracy and consistency, and my relation to Darnell Price (who provided the aforementioned profile picture).

I was recently asked by OG Cuicide's management (a well-known rapper, entrepreneur, and activist from Los Angeles) to help re-create a Wikipedia page for him, since his previous page was inexplicably removed. That is a whole other story (regarding a corrupt Wiki contributor from Turkey who threatened to remove the page if Darnell Price didn't pay him to "protect" it...) but I will stick to the point here as best I can.

It appears as though "Patrick Rogel" has marked other people's content for deletion before, and those users are just as unhappy with their experiences as I am becoming with mine. (see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Patrick_Rogel)

It is extremely disappointing to see that this user clearly has a habit of doing this. Especially after reading the following response on his page:

>Dear Mr. Rogel, Through the death of my husband Leonhard R. Lang, the image rights have passed to me. As his widow, I am entitled to make illustrations of his works available to the public - and this is my express wish. I am Heidi-pina. Please take back your deletion request. Yours sincerely, Heidelinde Lang --Heidi-pina (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Please address this concern as quickly as you can, I am trying to launch this new Wikipedia bio soon.

Thank you for your time,

-Aaron Williams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace woe (talk • contribs)

Dear Aaron, per our policy all files previously published somewhere in internet under non-free license should have OTRS-permission. Copyright belongs to Heidelinde Lang and formally only she has right to publish the photo under free license. So you should open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail should be sent to our permissions department at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Permission must come from copyright holder, that menas from Heidelinde Lang. Commons takes all copyright questions very seriously. For example, you said "own work" on file page, although you are not the photographer. Taivo (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick tagged the image for speedy deletion because it is an exact copy of an image already published on the internet. He did nothing wrong here. Emailed permission from the copyright holder of the photograph (not the subject) is necessary.
The Wikipedia article was deleted because your client does not meet Wikipedia standards of notability, not because of any corruption. Please read the Wikipedia policy on conflict-of-interest editing (particularly this starter guide) - since you have a connection to the subject, you are limited as to what edits you can make. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I think the request concerned File:4w1a8578aaaaa.jpg (which is a picture of Darnell Price AKA OG Cuicide) and has nothing to do with this Leonhard R. Lang thing. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biology2016

Biology2016 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Abusing multiple accounts: same uploads or reuploads of already deleted files by Evolution2point0 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. I have a bad feeling about these accounts. Could you please ask for checkuser for sleepers? Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ภาษาอังกฤษ

ภาษาอังกฤษ (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) This user's entire contributions list has been nonsensical edits. When I reverted them on File:GitHub logo 2013 padded.svg and warned them, they proceeded to make it worse. Opencooper (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I blocked the user for a month, deleted 3 copvios and reverted vandalism. Taivo (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jukomart

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

Reuploads the same file again and again despite previous block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment :-( I explained him, that if he once more re-uploads the photo, then he will be blocked again. I explained him need of OTRS-permission. Good is that the photo has now EXIF and he does not claim own work anymore. Taivo (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for the 3rd time, now for 2 weeks. — Racconish 💬 06:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Guido den Broeder

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Guido den Broeder has been warned and Fram agreed to move further discussions regarding the WMF ban at en:wp to Meta. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I can see the irony in this, it is becoming rather tedious. As you are probably aware, I have been recently banned fom enwiki by the WMF for one year. I have discussed this ban here on my user talk page.

Almost immediately, User:Guido den Broeder, who is community banned (for the third time) from enwiki, indefinitely blocked at meta (for "intimidating behaviour/harassment"), indef blocked at nlwiki (for socking), and indef blocked at nl.wikimedia, and who hardly ever edits Commons (one edit only in 2019 before this started), came to my talk page here with this[1]: "don't import issues from wikipedia". I reverted this as a rather ironic statement, since the editor is not an active Commons editor, but has a history with me at enwiki (where I started the two latest discussions resulting in his bans).

My revert lead to him posting at the admin noticeboard, [2] (my revert of his post on my talk was apparently "indicative of a combative attitude."), where the dismissal of his complaint was met with another post[3] about "Just take it elsewhere, we have policies against importing issues." (again, rather ironic, considering...)

He then continued to attack me in other discussions, despite me staying out of all of those: [4]: "the accusation that I've been using ranges of sockpuppets originates from Fram" (not true, nlwiki blocked him for socking without any interference from me at all). He amends the post specifically to attack me further: [5]: " In fact, I remember Fram mentioning Lyrda, so I'm sure that Alexis Jazz who I've never encountered before got canvassed to take revenge, since that is Fram's way." I have never mentioned Lyrda, I haven't canvassed Alexis Jazz (whom I don't know at all), and I have been accused of many things before, but "canvassing to take revenge" (or otherwise) is not one of them. A minor potshot follows[6], another frivilous mention of me[7], and [8].

For some reason the attacks then increase again: [9]: "Someone (Fram) on a failed encyclopedia project makes up stuff about me, and suddenly half of the community thinks it their holy duty to harass me.", and [10] ("Fram has been caught lying often enough") interspersed with random comments on my talk page[11][12].

Can you please ask Guido den Broeder to stop mentioning me and contacting me, or else to start a real case about me, with evidence and so on (not just empty statements about lying, canvassing, ..., but actual diffs)? Fram (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User warned. --A.Savin 11:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fram (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I did start a real case about Fram. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not happy about Fram using their Commons talk page as a means to evade their ban on en:wikipedia and post-by-proxy comments back to en:wikipedia about this en:wikipedia ban. Also using the talk page to comment negatively about some Wikipedians. I appreciate that Iridescent initiated this by asking for comments here, but I do think you should stop. Commons takes an extremely dim view of anyone bringing disputes on other projects over here and the above is a good example of why. You really have no reason to use your Commons talk page to talk about a ban on another project. I appreciate you have been an occasional Commons editor here, and the "Community vs WMF battle" likely has led to some Commons users and admins turning a blind eye. You have been banned by WMF from en:wikipedia and so really should stop engaging with that community on WMF projects. I take no view on the merits of your ban. I hope you can voluntarily agree to restrain your and your friend's use of your talk page to discuss Commons activities alone. And btw, if Guido den Broeder takes my post as encouragement to comment further about Fram, I would support an immediate indef block of Guido's account. -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That does sound rather harsh, in comparison. But no worries, it seems that my message has finally come across despite the premature close by Fae. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't closed by Fae. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Fram was closed by User:1989. I would strongly advise Guido to make no further edits on this matter, and would support any admin applying a block since they have clearly already been warned by A.Savin. Regardless of the dispute between these editors, Fram's edits here amount to ban evasion. I would also support a block of Fram's account here, but hope they can avoid that by recognising their error, which their comment about irony suggests they do. -- Colin (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Pili02

Pili02 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

This user posted only images in copyvio until now, and yet had a last warning months ago. It seems he/she ignored it, considering that today that account posted another photo, this time taken from Facebook. --Alex10 (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello admins please take care of User:Anpanman1

Anpanman1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

He/she has uploaded enough copyvios, and is not stopping despite warnings -- Eatcha (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Percivalfigaro

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

Same uploads as Jukomart (talk · contribs) so block evasion. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Re-upload deleted, sockpuppet indef'd. Thanks for letting us know. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello admins please take care of User:Shivabiswas22

Shivabiswas22 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user is Uploading Personal images. He is not going to stop IMO despite multiple requests see his talk page -- Eatcha (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Last warning, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knvrajesh

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done One week block, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And indef'ed on en.wp for undisclosed paid editing. The topics leading to that block there are in the area of telecom, not the celebrity-pictures being uploaded here, but I cannot rule out that the editor is some third-party SEO for hire, so I don't know if the week should be extended to indef here also. But obviously will require a close eye upon their return. DMacks (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ویرایشگر878

ویرایشگر878 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done The user was twice warned before and every upload was really copyvio, so I deleted last remaining uploads and blocked him/her for a month. Taivo (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul sharma from Delhi

Rahul sharma from Delhi (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I blocked him/her for a month (second block) and deleted some copyvios. Taivo (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter don from milan

Peter don from milan (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios just out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Third block, all files deleted, no useful edit. Indef. Yann (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Fabricio Acosta

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

Continues copyvios just out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done 3 months block: huge list of copyvios, no useful edit, 2nd block. Next block should be indef. Yann (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DRIS92 vs. Hanooz

DRIS92 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Removes files from the deletion request. Hanooz 11:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DRIS92: Do not remove anything from a deletion request. You can mention which files are OK, according to you, eventually with <s></s>. And do not add comment in the talk page, just add them at the bottom of the DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: This is one of the files that DRIS92 removes from the deletion request. I provided another resource of this file here before their edit wars. Hanooz 11:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: This is one exemple of false informations Hanooz. He claimed that the photo published elsewhere (in non-free websites) but the source exist in page is {{https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/media/1394/07/21/887398/%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%AD-%D8%AE%D8%B7-%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A8%D9%88%D9%87-%D8%A7%DA%98%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D9%BE%DB%8C%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%AA%D9%87-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%AC%D8%B1/photo/1%7Cthis}} at bottom of site is written "All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License."

Hanooz (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Delition Request based on false information deletion request --DRIS92 (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DRIS92: Please do not strike other people's writings. You can vote on the DR page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WLP socks and disruptive uploads

  1. FatGayWhore (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
  2. Cracked2345 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
  3. Sikderonline (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
  4. Sparx_The_Fox (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
  5. Samuel Siddiqui (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

These accounts are disrupting the WLP campaign. Suggest blocks and nuke uploads. @Pharos: FYI, and thanks to Hmxhmx for keeping their eyes open. @Green Giant: you may be interested in taking a deeper look for relationships to LTAs for one or more of these as highly likely socks for users with a fixation on LGBT+ disruption. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting them. I have locked all five from editing plus a sleeper at SamSiddiqui, and globally blocked their underlying IP addresses for a month each. Please feel free to drop me a line if there is more disruption. --Green Giant (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Орфорак

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

Recreates deleted content just out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. The second block is for a month. Taivo (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obakeng-electrobux

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

Out of scope images and copyvios, no useful edit. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Эlcobbola talk 17:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meninas sereias

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

✓ Done Last warning sent, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terminature

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 7 days. --Mhhossein talk 14:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lipeh Spanic

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked by Didym. Yann (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Humayon Ahmed Emon

Please block Humayon Ahmed Emon (talk · contribs). Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Indef., as sock of Srp Humayon Ahmed, all pages deleted. Yann (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verdy p

User:Verdy p introduced [13] a very major change to {{Lang-VP}} on 19:13, 25 June 2019‎. Next day, I opposed with this change by opening [14] a thread on the template talk page. Their statements are contradictory, and they do not respond to my suggestions (using the 6 official languages of UN). Instead, they just undo [15] [16] every edit I make on the template. Their block log indicates [17] they have recently been blocked for disruptive editing. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a month (3rd block), edit on template reverted. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m not a Verdy fan, nor here nor in the other two unrelated online projects I had the misfortune to cross paths with him in the past two decades, but one month (as opposed to, say, three days) seems unreasonably long. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Their previous block period for disruptive editing was one week, and it apparently did not work. It makes no sense to reduce the block period for commiting the same offence, and then expect it to work this time. IMO, the period of one month is perfectly proportionate and appropriate. 4nn1l2 (talk)

JuniorJunior

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Uploads nuked and user blocked for 3 days. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 09:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LTA:ISECHIKA 201906

Please block and nuke uploads per ja:LTA:ISECHIKA.--Roy17 (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=356237906"