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
114, 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
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
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
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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.

User:Dronebogus and "in use" as a way of avoiding deletion

[edit]

Warning: images linked here are NSFW. - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 May 2024, Dronebogus uploaded a self-made illustration. They added it to Wikidata on the same day. A few days later, they added it to Simple Wikipedia and also Spanish Wikipedia. A few days ago, they added it to English Wikipeda.

Here's the issue, this image is obviously well below the quality of image that is normally used on Wikimedia projects but it is now "in use" so any attempt to delete it will automatically fail. But it is only "in use" because Dronebogus added it to projects themselves. When I removed another piece of Dronebogus' self-made illustrations from Wikidata, they not only added it again, they tried to suggest that I was the one gaming the system.

Please take a look at the quality of File:Reverse ekiben position.png. To call it amateurish would be generous. But I can't ask for it to be deleted because it is "in use" and I can't remove from projects without getting into an argument with Dronebogus. This has already happened on English Wikipedia, where Dronebogus edit warred to keep the image and then accused Just Step Sideways of bad faith actions. I feel that Dronebogus is abusing a Commons rule to keep their substandard self-made images in Wikimedia projects as some kind of trolling or personal joke. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this really is all the content we have available for this, then I'd support INUSE as an argument.
But this is far from impressive behaviour, and it's far from the first time. We are not here as an alternative to DeviantArt et al. These poor quality images are nowhere near the standard we'd like to use and Dronebogus is, yet again, on very thin ice. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at File:Phonesex.gif, File:Spoon position on bed.PNG, File:Illustration-of-Buttjob.png, File:Diagrammatic, non-explicit, depiction of a male performing cunnilingus on a female..jpg. All are arguably even worse than my art which is famously so horrible, and all are in-use and in scope. I understand Enwiki has a very high standard on everything, but it’s hardly the only Wikimedia wiki, and it’s not like Commons is just for Wikimedia either. This might be the only freely licensed depiction of this sex position on the entire internet that isn’t AI generated. And as much as I’m informed my uploads are terrible, awful, no good, and very bad it hasn’t stopped them from being used by other users, for example here and here) (I have never edited either article; feel free to check). And yes, I do add my own images to stuff, but I also believe in W:WP:BOLD and W:WP:AGF. Dronebogus (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, someone still thought it worthwhile to trace one of those to an SVG! Weird.
As I wrote, I would support this one within that narrow context of it being all we have. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn’t an ANI issue. And it certainly isn’t trolling or a “personal joke”. From the discussion at Enwiki: “I am under no illusions that my drawing is particularly good, but there were literally no free images of this subject on Commons and the article was illustrated by a copyright violation that was going to be deleted anyway. I didn’t want to leave a void where the original illustration was so after significant consideration I tried my best to provide at least a passable replacement.” I accused JSS of bad faith because they have acted in bad faith before, but I believe in this particular case their actions were legitimate and their response was adequate and civil. I think all three uses are legitimate— the one at Spanish Wikipedia was a similar replacement, the one at Wikidata was about the same topic, and the one at Simple English was in a relevant section. If you have a problem with my conduct it would have been much less aggressive to simply discuss it on my talk page. Dronebogus (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus I brought this here because this is something for the Commons community to discuss and decide upon. If it is not trolling, why are you adding something that you know is no good to Wikimedia projects? There are countless things on projects without illustrations - that doesn't mean that a bad image should be used. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it’s “no good”. I’m kind of being sarcastic when I say it’s so horrible and awful. In fact Andy Dingley has abruptly flipped around and said my art is actually pretty good when it happens to be SFW. But I have no illusions of it being brilliant and would gladly welcome somebody more talented replacing it. Dronebogus (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
better than nothing. i agree with dronebogus. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 21:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral why there is so many "dronebogus" topics out there in near time?
i checked up the image, and if no copyvio and has purpose to education it is good in my book. if you are not agree, i belive you should request DR for that instead move it to AN/U. you are free to put it in DR, again. and with solid arguements. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 21:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Modern primat I think you missed the point. It won't be deleted because it is "in use". Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to nominate it, be my guest. But it won’t be deleted because it’s in scope. Dronebogus (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like that's kind of the issue here. On the one hand it's worth uploading images that help illustrate a certain subject on Wikipedia in cases where we don't have any. Yet on the other in my own personal experience there doesn't to be a consensus we should do that by way of user generated content. At least not outside of maps or diagrams and even then there's some standards. There's a point where it just becomes "usage for it's own sake" though. Not the particular educational merits of the image as such and I think your veering to much into that territory.
There is of a course a line there where it's not a helpful or productive way to illustrate articles and I think you've repeatedly crossed it by uploading and adding your own illustrations to articles. That's certainly not something I would do. Even for scans of postcards in a lot of cases, because I don't necessarily know what is a "good" images for an article about any given topic. What you probably should be doing is just uploading the images and letting other people add them to other projects if they want to. If you aren't willing to roll the dice and leave it up to the community then you shouldn't be uploading the images to begin with though. Otherwise it just comes off like gaming the system. And it's hard to believe your not doing that at this point considering the history. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you’re mostly right, but your interpretation of community “consensus” is wrong. I don’t know of anyone who objects to users uploading their own work purely on that basis besides you. The reason everyone complains about my work is because they consider it low-quality and amateurish, dislike the sexual nature of it, or in this case find my behavior system-gamey. The main reason I am perhaps over-eager to use my own work is because anything I upload now is meant to fill a particular gap; if people don’t see that gap being filled they will assume it’s just mediocre art. I am extremely hesitant to upload anything else due to recent events (I actually have a drawing I finished before all this happened that I don’t know if I’ll ever upload) so it’s unlikely to be an issue; if I do upload anything in the future I won’t be adding it to another project without express permission from that project. Dronebogus (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know of anyone who objects to users uploading their own work purely on that basis besides you. There's plenty of DRs out there where amature artwork was deleted as OOS. Be my guest and look for them, but I'm not only who has an issue with it and there's a pretty clear consensus that it's usually OOS except in certain situations. But they aren't relevant to this. Anyway, I can understand you wanting to upload your artwork to "fill a gap" but if there's no freely available images out there for the subject to begin with then maybe it's not a gap that needs filling. At least with your personal drawings.
Although I have zero problem with you uploading the images to serve that purpose on our end. Just don't add them to Wikidata or Wikipedia articles on your own. At least IMO that's purely where the issue comes in because it takes away our ability as a project to decide if the images should be on here or not to begin with. Worse case scenario some of your uploads get deleted as OOS. So what though? It happens sometimes and it's not the end of the world. I think people get to personally offended if or when their images get nominated for deletion. So they throw a tantrum or game the system so they don't have to deal with their own rejection issues. It's perfectly fine if not everything you upload ends up staying on Commons though. I certainly don't expect it myself with my own uploads. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I agree with what you’re saying in broad strokes, but I strongly disagree with your argument that “if it was needed it would already exist”. If that was the case then the only things we’d have were free images from a long time ago or from various governments, which unsurprisingly seem to be the only things you upload. Dronebogus (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking purely about the subjects that you keep uploading images of amateur artwork for here. The last time I checked that has nothing to do with historical subjects or the government. Although I think similar rules would and do apply with amateur artwork by users of those things. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re missing my point: if we all thought “it would exist if it was needed”, why make anything? Dronebogus (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Just a quick question - looking back on other interactions between the two of you: do both of you think it's wise to keep trying to work this out here between the two of you? Kritzolina (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about me and Dronebogus or Dronebogus and the person who opened this? If your talking about me and Dronebogus that was really all I had to say and it doesn't sound like we disagree that much about it to begin with. I'm not claiming there's a clear line with it or even advocating for any action here. Simply sharing my thoughts on the matter. I think it's Dronebogus' and/or Counterfeit Purses thing to work out at this point. Honestly, this kind of comes off like Counterfeit Purses is trying to relitigate the whole thing from before when it was already resolved. Dronebogus can and should use their own intuition as someone who works in the areas at question to figure when it's appropriate or not to add their own artwork to Wikipedia articles. Again though, I don't think there's a bright line when it comes to the appropriateness of someone doing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that is this CP trying to re-kindle the last embers of this month’s drama for not really any particularly good reason, plus the fact that they already seem to be following me around to add negative, contrarian remarks about me (like here and here). I’m not as litigious as I used to be so I’m not suggesting a boomerang against a good-faith user who’s barely been editing a year, but they really should cut it out. Dronebogus (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really have a user complaining that another user uploaded media and made use of them on WMF projects? I don't think they are up to anything productive here and should be blocked. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Strong oppose block is not needed. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 17:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why do you think so? Enhancing999 (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think a block is needed here either, per my reasoning above. This should just be closed without action against anyone. Dronebogus (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a block is needed here either but @Counterfeit Purses: really needs to accept the feedback and not waste the communities time with similar ANU complaints in the future. There really should be consequences for filing clearly false ANU complaints. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's quite normal for people to upload images to Common so they can use them to fill holes in Wikimedia projects. Chasing a user's uploads and removing them from use so you can delete them on Commons is not so good. I'd generally say that chasing a user's edits on other Wikiprojects and reverting them is considered bad there, as well. Trying to delete low quality artwork that covers something we don't have a million files for makes Commons slightly less valuable and increases the level of hostility on Commons; it's not a good thing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

[edit]

It is clear from the responses to my posting here that other Commons users do not see Dronebogus' uploads of self-made illustrations as a problem. I understand and I will respect that view. I have also taken the liberty of creating and uploading an alternative illustration (File:Reverse ekiben sex position.png) to increase the choices for other projects. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanlalziki

[edit]

Another obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar, see Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comunicação MKT 2024

[edit]

Comunicação MKT 2024 is likely a sock of Comunicação Paulistano. Overlap on both File:Logo Paulistano Oficial.svg (see log) and pt:Club Athletico Paulistano. Also the apparent similarities in the username. The master was blocked on ptwiki, hence the need to create a sockpuppet. Jonteemil (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re @Yann: You only blocked the sock, not the master, was that on purpose? Jonteemil (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the master has only one edit here, and I am a supporter of Give 'em enough rope. Yann (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Jonteemil (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is inconsistent with the behavior of other Admins, and what that essay says (there is no block or unblock request in evidence on this project).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Altair Netraphim/Disclaimer

[edit]

The licence template at User:Altair Netraphim/Disclaimer, applied to a couple of hundred of that user's images, says that these images are CC-BY licenced, but specifies three additional and original clauses that seem fundamentally incompatible with COM:LICENSING:

  • The statement that YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO UPLOAD THIS FILE TO ALL SOCIAL NETWORKS. Other anti-Facebook templates of this nature were discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nofacebook and Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates a few years ago, with the conclusion being that such a restriction goes against Commons scope, with the WMF taking a similar view.
  • The requirement that For printed publication, you must contact the author via email for approval. This goes against the "anyone, anytime, for any purpose" basics of Commons licensing, uploaders cannot pick and choose which publishers are allowed to reuse an image.
  • Of printed publications, the requirement to Use the highest resolution as soon as possible. - assuming that's meant as an instruction to use the highest resolution possible, that's ruling out anyone who would prefer to use a lower resolution for whatever reason (eg. printing a poster in low quality monochrome to save ink or money, even though a higher resolution would be technically possible).

I raised these concerns on the user's talk page in June, following it up in July, but have gotten no response. It would be helpful to get their perspective on whether this licence should be rephrased, or - if they wish to retain these restrictions on reuse - the images removed from Commons for being incompatible with COM:LICENSING. Belbury (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't see the issue here. The discussed issue about FB also exists for other social networks. And it is usually accepted that modified versions should be uploaded as separate files. Yann (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not the requirement to upload on Commons separately, it is the requirement that all external reusers must contact the author by email for approval of printed use. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, right. I let a message again on their talk page. Yann (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say the discussed issue about FB also exists for other social networks, have I misunderstood Commons' view on "no Facebook" type templates? I assumed from the linked deletion requests that they were against licencing policy. Belbury (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incompatible with free licensing. Files with non-free requirements cannot be kept. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with Asclepias here. I ran into a similar license a few months ago and asked the user to change it to remove the requirements, which it they did. You might try that and then nominate the images for deletion if they are unwilling to. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked exactly that on the talk page that I link to, back in June, but it got no response. Belbury (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Then I'd support a block if they don't respond to this or Yann on their talk page since I think it's enough chances for them to address the problem. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quickero005

[edit]

Persistent reuploads of deleted content. --Geohakkeri (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a month (2nd block). Yann (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zothanpuii pautu

[edit]

Yet another obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar, see Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Estradadarwin1035

[edit]

This user uploads File:One TV logo.svg which is the same file as File:OneTVLogo2023.svg, uploaded by Estradadarwin29 who is blocked indef for being a sock of Yuiyui2001. Given the similarities in the username and the fact that they show up at User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files I would assume it too is a sock. There is also Estradadarwin30 who also is a sock. Jonteemil (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for socking, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More Yuiyui2001 socks

[edit]

These also seem to be Yuiyui2001 socks such as #Estradadarwin1035 above. Plenty of overlap and the apparent similarities in the username. All accounts are blocked on enwiki for socking. Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done All blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ufaizckd

[edit]

Another Bobanfasil sock. Overlap at w:All India Sevens Football and w:Thahir Zaman with other socks. Also uploaded File:All India Sevens Football Association Badge.png which seems identical to a file uploaded by another, now blocked, Bobanfasil sock. Jonteemil (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked by CptViraj. Yann (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Counterfeit Purses

[edit]

See the "follow up" comment in the discuss about Dronebogus above this and the user's talk page. As well as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reverse ekiben sex position.png. It's pretty clear they are just here to concern troll and stir up drama. Adamant1 (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. How am I "stirring up drama" by saying that I understand what people were telling me about Dronebogus's self-made illustrations? I saw what I thought was a problem, I started a discussion here, other users disagreed that it was a problem, and I accept their opinion. That's it. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you know. You should have dropped the whole thing and moved on instead of uploading an image that's clearly OOS just to continue a dispute and prove a point. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is File:Reverse ekiben sex position.png out of scope? What point do you think I am trying to prove? How am I continuing a dispute by stating that the dispute is resolved? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know "Adamant bad." Anyone who isn't in this just to be an axe grinding opportunist can look into Counterfeit Purses editing history to see that they have absolutely no experience in the area what-so-ever and just uploaded the image to be pointy and continue their dispute with Dronebogus. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just uploaded the image to be pointy You really need to stop assigning motives to other editors. Comment on the edits, not the editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying someone is trollling is litterally just a descriptor of their behavior. In the same way reporting someone for vandalism is. I've certainly taken accusations of vandalism as assigning motives to my behavior in the past. Yet its still somwthing that's against the rules just like trolling and that people get reported for all the time. Its not on me that your taking it personally. There's no poit in doing this if we aren't allowed to portray each others actions in a negative way. Your certainly fine doing that to me essentially every time you have a chance to. Be my guest and stop making everything personal if really have that much of an issue with it. The endless hypocrisy on your end of these types of discussions is getting tiring though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trolling But you haven't described any instance of them trolling. "We only have one poor image and so I'm going to make a better one" is not a bad faith action. It's a behaviour we want here. You might just about use that in a DR post, but to go immediately to ANU? That's not justified. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what they said though and as I pointed out in the DR they spent almost a month badgering Dronebogus about uploading personal drawings and using them other projects. Then they posted that they did the exact same thing an in ANU that was clearly resolved. I could care less if you disagree with that. It's your prerogative if you disagree that's trolling. But it certainly comes of to me that way and I have every right to report someone to ANU if I feel their behavior is inappropriate. There was nothing immediate about this though. Their behavior has been an issue for at least a couple of weeks, if not longer. Your free to disagree and move on, but at spare me the two faced sanctimony next time about my behavior next time. I'm tired of dealing with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CP’s behavior towards me is undeniably sloppy and needlessly hostile. Just scroll up a few sections to see examples. Andy Dingley jumping on their upload to basically re-litigate a DR against mine with no new arguments besides “a better version now exists” is also kind of lousy (at best). But I think the real problem is that everyone is still waving their guns at everyone else over such a silly issue. CP didn’t need to continually pester me about trivial incidents, Adamant1 didn’t need to file this, and AD didn’t need to file an unnecessary and opportunistic deletion request. Why is it so hard for everyone to just drop this? Dronebogus (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSING COMMENT All parties please keep in mind the purpose of the site, too much "I", not enough focus on scope. Measure of participation is alignment with Commons' scope and purpose. Numbers of parties are not showing the best of themselves.

  • Adamant1 -- please look to your approach, you appear here too often; first blush ... too much pugilism
  • Counterfeit Purses -- I wouldn't call it trolling behaviour though a provocative first upload, especially looking at where you have contributed and what you are doing onsite. It is the perception of what you are doing, and where you are doing it. Having a broader corpus of contribution can give a wider basis of understanding.
  • Dronebogus -- don't join battles when you don't need to

Re AI images; while I generally don't like them (personal opinion), this is a case where it could be claimed that it retains a usable purpose, even if it is an unrealistic portrayal.

 Not done  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

User:188.92.251.201

[edit]

Another user just trying to censor videos of sex without a legitimate rationale Dronebogus (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done IP with an agenda, blocked for 3 days, all DRs closed. Yann (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mohmad Abdul sahib

[edit]

Seems to be the same IP editor with an agenda that was just blocked. Dronebogus (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consolidated.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zomuanpuii joute

[edit]

Yet another obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar, see Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick1984

[edit]

A user threatens to block me. (1). --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I blocked Engelberthumperdink for 3 months. Already several blocks before, but it seems the message didn't get through. Next block should be indefinite. Yann (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lallawmzuali ralte

[edit]

Yet another obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar, see Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonteemil: ✓ Done thanks to EPIC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, however is it really necessary with a global lock when the socks only seem to edit Commons? Can't they just be handled locally instead? There is no cross-wiki abuse, just locally here on Commons. Jonteemil (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonteemil: The master was locked for "Cross-wiki abuse " after uploading copyvios here and spam on www.mediawiki.org.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know but I haven't seen the socks editing any other wiki than Commons. A global lock hence seems unnecessary but I might be wrong. Jonteemil (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonteemil: Details of the original claim are archived at m:Steward requests/Global/2023-w44#Global lock for Chhanchhana zote hmar. Details of any Checkuser evidence are not shared outside the Checkusers, Stewards, and other Functionaries.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing the global lock of the master but rather the socks. But let's end this discussion, it's a trifle and not something worth spending more time on. Jonteemil (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

DMA180guy

[edit]

DMA180guy is likely a sock of BMarGlines. What makes me believe this is that the master uploaded File:WBNG-DT2 2024.svg which was deleted and then reuploaded by the sock. See also interaction on Wikipedia. All uploads also look exactly the same in terms of layout of the file pages. Jonteemil (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However w:User talk:DMA180guy#KTUU & KATH logos makes me doubtful. Perhaps it'd be better if a checkuser checks on this in a sock investigation instead? Like, why would a master communicate with their sock? Jonteemil (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonteemil: Spreading FUD.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible. Would you propose a sock investigation? Jonteemil (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonteemil: You may at COM:RFCU with evidence which includes diffs / upload log entries.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illegitimate Barrister

[edit]

Editor is violating Wikimedia licensing requirements/terms of use by uploading works by other editors from other projects and not providing attribution. See for example, File:Wordmark of Spokane Valley, Washington.svg and en:File:Logo of Spokane Valley, Washington.svg (the original, byte for byte identical file). It's also unclear if they understand COM:TOO, but the attribution violations are a clear issue. Given the number of uploads they've made, I request for someone to go through all their uploads and determine if they are actually the original uploader or if they're simply lifting work by editors on other Wikimedia projects and claiming it as their own. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that now the editor has taken to uploading PNG versions of the files which were speedily deleted as exceeding COM:TOO. The prior concerns about attribution still remain for this editors other uploads. I'd almost suggest a preventative block until this user discloses how many other files they've uploaded from other Wikimedia projects that aren't actually their own work. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the supposed issue. If you upload fair use material to local Wikipedias and it turns ot that the material is actually PD/can be hosted on commons, and it is moved to Commons, then there is zero need to attribute you in any way, as you aren't the author, you only uploaded someone elses work, and this "someone else" needs to be attributed - and this has been done apparently. TheImaCow (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is zero need to attribute you in any way Thank you for clarifying that you don't understand the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. Per foundation:Policy:Terms_of_Use#7._Licensing_of_Content, "b. Attribution: Attribution is an important part of these licenses. We consider it giving credit where credit is due – to authors like yourself." This is non-negotiable, and if an editor is stealing other users work, then they need to be banned until such issues can be resolved. If I'm the first one to ever notice them doing this, that's unfortunate, but doesn't change the fact that attribution is absolutely required on all Wikimedia projects per Foundation policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that you are the original author of some US town's logo? Is it truly your work, or did you just took it from https://www.spokanevalleywa.gov/? Do you understand the difference between uploader/author?
- If you are the original author of this work (converting the work to SVG, upscaling it etc dosen't make you the author), then obviously you need to be attributed.
- If you are not the original author, then you don't need to be attributed as the author, as you aren't the author. It's not that hard. People can attribute you as the uploader besides the original author, but it is in no way required neither by policy/TOS/legally, let alone blockable. TheImaCow (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the original author. I am the contributor who found and created the SVG file. You are not an administrator and thus your participation in this discussion is... confusing. You have no say in this, and this doesn't concern you. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: non-administrators are more than welcome to comment in discussions here, though discouraged from dominating the discussion. (1) One of the main ways we find potential new admins is who contributes usefully in discussions such as these and shows a deep understanding of administrative issues. (2) Other than an expectation of a certain amount of general policy expertise, admins really only have two ways we are singled out: (2a) we are considered to have the community's general confidence to enforce and to act in accord with community consensus and (2b) in discussions where some conclusion must be drawn, we are trusted to weigh arguments on the various sides and to be familiar enough with policy to appropriately square the immediate expression of views with policy. As far as I can think, any other thing we do can just as appropriately be done by a non-admin. - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Foundation Terms of Use are not subject to individual project's consensus mechanisms: I literally do not need non-administrators soapboxing this, I need an administrator to act and put the goals of the project ahead of one individual user engaging in plagiarism. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also relevant is w:Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons, specifically for manual moves from English Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons, "A copy of the local upload log — You must state the username of each uploader and the date/time at which the upload was performed". These are not optional precisely because of the Terms of Use. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to wikilaywer, then at least cite the entire section, "You must state the username of each uploader and the date/time at which the upload was performed. This is a strict requirement for the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses."
The file in question is (allegedly) public domain, and therefore dosen't need the username of some person who released the file under that licence - because neither that person nor that licence exists. TheImaCow (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please learn how to read. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from using personal attacks.
en:Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons is not a policy or even a guideline, nor is it on Commons. TheImaCow is quite right, recreating a logo doesn’t make it your own work as you are not the original artist/designer/creator. Bidgee (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a personal attack. My recommendation to learn to read however applies to you as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a warning to be civil or you will be blocked. In this context your learn to read comment is an attack. Gbawden (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been quite civil. It is not my responsibility to explain the English language to someone when they are clearly not understanding it. I'm assuming good faith that they genuinely do not understand the words and recommending they seek professional help to become better at it. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed true that I am not native in English, and if anything I need a language course, not professional help.
Either way, I hope I dont need to explain to you that Commons is a multilingual project. TheImaCow (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole Just to be clear, you're saying that the uploader of the image needs to be credited not the (presumably unknown) author of the original work? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is the person who authored the image and there is the person who uploaded the image (which is grossly simplifying it in my case). I did not simply find an image and upload it, I went over many PDF files to find a vector version of the logo, extracted the logo using Adobe Illustrator, removed any extraneous bits, and saved it as an SVG. How long this process takes varies from logo to logo, but it can vary from less than an hour, to days or weeks depending on how difficult it is to find a vector logo. Per the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use, attribution is a mandatory requirement for all contributions to Wikimedia projects. The act of uploading an image is a "contribution". Contributors don't get paid to work on these projects, the only "pay" we get is credit for our work ("Attribution is an important part of these licenses. We consider it giving credit where credit is due – to authors like yourself"). Illegitimate Barrister is taking credit for my work. They are likely taking credit for other users work as well. They should be blocked until the damage can be determined or they agree to disclose the actual sources of works they've uploaded. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a en:sweat of the brow argument, which is explicitly not a part of US copyright law. I thought it was pretty well established that making a slavish copy of a 2D PD item did not result in attaching a new level of licensing, no matter how much time and effort you put into doing it? DMacks (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing licensing with attribution. In these specific images, I think they exceed COM:TOO, and thus are fair use, but even supposing they are PD-eligible, that doesn't address attribution as per the Foundation's Terms of Use: "giving credit where credit is due" is a strong reason why many contribute to these projects. To take your reading of it, we don't need to give credit to people who provide content to Wikimedia projects. That is part of why many people contribute, not because they get paid but because they get to be recognized for contributing. Your interpretation would undermine that. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed licensing and attribution are related but different ideas. Your start of this thread initially commented partially on licensing, but now seems like only attribution is the topic remaining in play. As you note ,"Attribution is an important part of these licenses", and PD does not require attribution as part of its licensing. Now Commons (or WMF, as its parent) can have a more strict requirement. The image in question was tagged "Author=unknown" by IB. That is a mistake: they should have cited where they got it (provenance being the enwiki file) or the origin of that file (spokanevalley.org URL, since that's what that file says is its origin) so re-users can verify that it is a correct image. But IB explicitly disclaimed being the creator of it or having any other involvement except uploading what they found somewhere else, so they are not stealing anyone's credit. DMacks (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I opened with "Editor is violating Wikimedia licensing requirements/terms of use by uploading works by other editors from other projects and not providing attribution", I only speak of COM:TOO later as a secondary offense, but I even finish my initial report noting that attribution is the primary concern. Attribution is separate from and distinct from the licenses, all contributions to Wikimedia projects are irrevocably released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL. The actions I take are saved as metadata (the upload log) which provides the attribution that is necessary at a most basic level. When a user circumvents Special:ImportFile and manually downloads, then re-uploads as their "own" work, they are deliberately plagiarizing another users work. There is no nice way to describe this other than theft.
If Illegitimate Barrister wanted to do the work I did, they should have found the file themselves, opened it in a vector graphics editor, isolated the image they wanted, and uploaded it themselves. But they didn't. I did. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be credited in the file description when creating an SVG or something from scratch.
What you are doing however is reporting an editor who forgot that -still not mandatory- attribution on a single file (!!), you have apparently not once tried to discuss this with them on their talk page (!!!), and you explicitly demand them to be blocked for that single non-issue. (!!!!!)
And please read the notice on top of this page before suggesting me to seek professional help to me for being illiterate. TheImaCow (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin, seconding every word of what TheImaCow just wrote. If you want the file history from en-wiki noted, you can, of course, copy-paste it yourself, probably on the talk page of the file in question. Nothing here calls for administrative action against User:Illegitimate Barrister. (And if Locke Cole continues to question the literacy of other contributors, that would call for sanctions. I hope this will simply be the last time, and we can just put that behind us.) - Jmabel ! talk 19:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much clearer the foundation's Terms of Use need to be for you to understand that you're wrong, but it's exceptionally disappointing for you to be supporting plagiarism as an administrator, and if you're not feeling any shame in that, then I don't know what else to tell you. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole: if you really want to accuse me of "supporting plagiarism", please make that a COM:AN/U report in its own right, and request that I be sanctioned for it. Otherwise, I just consider that an ummerited personal attack. I'll even promise that if you request sanctions against me for this I will not to respond to the report to defend myself, unless I am specifically addressed to answer a question, because I am confident that the main response to the accusation will be laughter. No, it is not "plagiarism" to fail to acknowledge you in uploading a file in which you have no intellectual property rights. Are we also supposed to acknowledge the printer of every book we cite? The person who developed the film on anything that came from a film camera? - Jmabel ! talk 05:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since apparently there's no administrators on this project willing to follow the Foundation's Terms of Use, I've submitted an email to [email protected] to determine their position on this. If they agree, I'll simply stop working on anything image related with regards to Wikimedia projects, because it's clear my work is not valued or respected. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole Thank you for the work you have done on this and probably other images. As others have already said, there is no requirement for anyone to credit you for that work. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there is no requirement for anyone to credit you for that work" So the Foundation Terms of Use is garbage and we can just take other users work as our own? giving credit where credit is due is just a suggestion and not mandatory, other users be damned? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I say upload a scan of a postcard I'll usually credit myself in the source field as the one who created the scan while citing the postcard publisher as the author. It's questionable someone else reusing the image has to give me credit for the scan. As I'm not the original creator of the postcard. Although they should credit the postcard publisher instead of acting like it's their own work. The same goes for other people who upload similar images. It's tangential, but we seem to have a serious problem with citing themselves as the creators of works that clearly weren't made by them even if they took a photograph of it or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for off-Wikimedia usage, in theory CC-BY-SA/GFDL should require attribution just as it does on Wikimedia projects (because, again, why do all the work of finding old postcards and scanning them in if someone else will just take the work and claim it as their own).. but as far as Wikimedia projects are concerned, in addition to those licenses, we have the TOU that explicitly sets out attribution as being important and "giving credit where credit is due". I would feel shame taking your work and using it elsewhere without disclosing your contribution to the provenance that got the file to me (take your pic on Wiktionary definitions of "provenance"; "3. (art) The history of ownership of a work of art" or "4. (computing) The copy history of a piece of data, or the intermediate pieces of data used to compute a final data element, as in a database record or web site (data provenance)". And perhaps it's this name we should use for describing the situation (credit to @DMacks, above, for using the word first in this thread). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole You are reading something into the terms of use that isn't there. There is no requirement for you to be credited for the type of work that you have described. You are not the creator of the images or the copyright holder. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure I'm not reading something that isn't there. Attribution is clearly listed, "credit where credit is due" is the goal, and anyone with even a minor moral compass understands that plagiarism is morally wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree its probably "morally wrong" not to credit someone for recrating a work, but there's a difference between that and someone being required to credit the person. They aren't the same thing and no is required to credit the reproducer unless its explicity part of the license. But even that case you probably don't have to legally credit them because is false to begin with. Personally I'm not going to waste my crediting some random user another website that I got a file from just because they happen to be the one who uploaded it there. We aren't obligated to credit everyone who interacts with an image in some online. Cool they converted it from a tiff file to a jpeg and uploaded it to Flickr, but so what? It's still not their work. So you should prbably just stop the stick and move on. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is where the terms of use are clear that "credit where credit is due" is important. "So you should prbably just stop the stick and move on" I mean, that's unlikely to happen when clear and obvious plagiarism is ongoing. I have a better idea: we hold users accountable when it's clear and obvious they attempt to take credit for another users work. If your intention is to damage this community by saying "sure, go ahead and steal each others work", then taking your advice is a sure fire way to do it. But if you want to keep users who are actually contributing time and effort (and not lazy people who just upload other users work and try to take the credit) then maybe take this a bit more seriously? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good percentage of my time on here is spent dealing with COPYVIO. So it's something I take more seriously enough when it's an actual issue. Your taking the guideline to literally to Wikilaywer though. If this was an actual issue, let alone plagiarism, then it would have already been dealt with by an administrator. The fact that it hasn't been should be a sign that this is a nothing burger. Or are you going to argue that administrators on here just don't care about COPYVIO? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Or are you going to argue that administrators on here just don't care about COPYVIO?" Well if the shoe fits... I don't think it's "wikilawyering" to ask that we follow the Foundation's Terms of Use and give credit where credit is due. Seems pretty basic, honestly. Personally, I wish the software did something similar to the duplicate upload check where if someone tries to upload a byte-for-byte identical file to something that already exists on another Wikimedia project, their upload is blocked and they're invited to use Special:ImportFile so the attribution history is maintained. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nth-ing the above. Locke Cole is just plain wrong in their understanding, and I see no action needed related to Illegitimate Barrister.
  1. w:File:Logo of Spokane Valley, Washington.svg has no license. Notwithstanding that it's more likely than not {{PD-Simple}}, it has at all times, and is currently, purported to be used under a fair use exemption. {{Non-free logo}} is not a license; it is merely a template denoting non-free content. (This inherent to fair use in this context; the copyright holder has not granted a license, but it is used nevertheless under the exemption.)
  2. The cited terms ("7.b. Attribution: Attribution is an important part of these licenses. We consider it giving credit where credit is due – to authors like yourself") are not applicable as a) per above, there is no license; b) relatedly, a non-existent license cannot be a member of "these licenses"; and c) the quotation is taken out-of-context; it is a continuation of the preceding section ("7.a. Text to which you hold the copyright")--"these licenses" refer to CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL referenced 7.a. and, indeed, the very next 7.b. sentence (i.e., following the cherry-picked quote) is "When you contribute text ..." (underline added). The relevant section for images is 7.d. Non-text media:, but also not germane to this concern as it too is dependent upon a license.
  3. Even if w:File:Logo of Spokane Valley, Washington.svg had a license, there would be no issue. As noted above, "[going] over many PDF files to find a vector version of the logo, extract[ing] the logo using Adobe Illustrator, remov[ing] any extraneous bits, and sav[ing] it as an SVG" is nothing but sweat of the brow, which the United States does not consider to impart an intellectual property interest. Even if it did, such an interest would be limited to the added original (novel) authorship, which is none per Locke Cole's own description (and, again, this is more likely than not {{PD-Simple}}). Эlcobbola talk 22:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elcobbola So... it's okay to steal other people's work and not give credit where credit is due. The Foundation Terms of Service are a lie. Thank you for clearing that up. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:L

[edit]

Also worth noting is COM:L which states "the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not: ... [t]he Source of the material. ... Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible" (emphasis added). A complete citation would include where the uploader found it, in addition to other users who contributed to the file that was ultimately uploaded here. I am, again, embarrassed on behalf of pretty much everyone above who appears to be taking the side of a plagiarist, but here we are. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:L also says Note: Things like "Transferred from Wikipedia" are generally not considered a valid source unless that is where it was originally published. The primary source should be provided. You are not the source of an image that you have taken from a PDF. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "regardless if the license requires it or not" is unclear to you? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole I'm dropping out of this discussion, but I was only trying to help you. You seem to have a very fixed idea and you are taking words that appear in the terms of use out of context. Illegitimate Barrister does not seem to be claiming that their public domain uploads are their own work so there is no plagiarism. Maybe stop and ask yourself why everyone seems to be telling you the same thing? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine thinking wanting credit for your work to be such a controversial subject on a project dedicated to free use media. Y’all are wild. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my other comment above, you do not "just want credit" -nothing wrong with that, could have added your name to the file description "SVG version created by Locke Cole" and leave a message to IB-, no, you want to block people who forgot such attribution a single time, and without talking with them a single time about this. TheImaCow (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've imposed a 2 week block as a result of their continuing upload of non-free files, and as a result of this discussion. Illegitimate is a long-term user, they should definitely know better. Bedivere (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Proof of any recently deleted unfree files? Very poor block. Bidgee (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, all recent DR notices on their talk page are still open and are about quite complex copyright situations, not "upload random internet files and say you made them"-type situations.
    And "result of this thread"? I see clear consensous that there is no issue with forgetting to attribute someone a single time when that attribution is not required by any guideline etc. TheImaCow (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot use consensus to override the Foundation Terms of Use. I'd think this would be obvious, but if there's one thing I've learned about Commons, there's not a lot of common sense amongst the users who regularly participate here. Which is why I've avoided this project. But seeing my work plagiarized has unfortunately forced me to get involved here. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite a disappointing response by Bedivere. [1] Bidgee (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bidgee Literally the first two comments in this report are about how Illegitimate Barrister persisted in uploading non-free content after having the SVG files speedily deleted. It's very hard to take this project seriously when people can just ignore facts right before their own eyes... —Locke Cole • t • c 03:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ditto to TheImaCow. I see nothing on this thread to suggest that IB did anything wrong (and I long since advised Locke Cole that if they want credit there is nothing to stop them from adding it). This file turned out to be non-free, but it's a close call on COM:TOO, a mistake almost anyone could have made. Unless someone can point at a couple of egregious errors in terms of copyright issues, or a large number of reasonably clear errors, I'd support an immediate unblock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is wondering, User:Illegitimate Barrister has been unblocked. - Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very unfortunate, none of the attribution issues has adequately been looked in to. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly too involved a party to be the one to close this thread, but I think it is due to be closed. For the record, the accusation against me for "supporting plagiarism" has been neither substantiated nor withdrawn. - Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it should be closed because this project supports plagiarists? And as to you, specifically, it's substantiated by your defense of plagiarism, above, and why would I withdraw a plain fact? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please cease making bad faith statements. You have completely misunderstood how copyright and the ToU works. Bidgee (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made any bad faith statements. I can read words, and the ToU is quite clear that the Foundation wants to give credit where credit is due. I'm sorry that you lot here don't appear to support that, but it doesn't change that it's true. A better idea would be to stop supporting users who steal other users work. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bidgee's statement above. I'll note that Locke Cole has made personal attacks against TheImaCow and Jmabel that haven't been withdrawn, and I believe that Locke Cole appears to also en:WP:ICHY. I also agree with Jmabel and Elcobbola. Abzeronow (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shocking, more people who support users who steal other users work. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for boomerang block

[edit]

Per @Locke Cole: clear inability to get the point even after multiple administrator have said they are wrong. Along with the multiple insults towards the same admins that they refuse to withdraw or even acknowledge are an issue. At this point @Locke Cole: is clearly just being uncollaborative time suck. Competence is required and intentional or not they clearly lack it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I be okay with having my work stolen? Again you guys are absolutely nuts. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramliani zahau

[edit]

Yet another obvious sock of Chhanchhana zote hmar, see Category:Sockpuppets of Chhanchhana zote hmar. Jonteemil (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of supprised there isn't a point where someone doesn't just get their IP address range blocked or something after that many socks. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ckfrlgud1

[edit]

Ckfrlgud1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent uploading of copyrighted materials. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I warned the user, all uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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

Persistent uploading of copyrighted materials. User's uploads were mass-deleted 2 times already (1, 2); the user was notified on their talk page about the deletions. Yet, the user has again uploaded copyrighted material. Please delete, and block(?) the user. DmitTrix (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedragabb

[edit]

Ahmedragabb (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) seems to have reuploaded images that were previously deleted after receiving a warning. Can an admin please give them a sterner one and re-delete the files? Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=908112075"