Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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
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
123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 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
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
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
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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.

Sock ja:LTA:MASA

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

伊藤彩沙は阪急京都線京都河原町駅ですね (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) sock found. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Yann: More socks found. Seems to be either ja:LTA:MASA/ja:LTA:ISECHIKA.
大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Socking

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Dr Plane is a sock of Young Mahasi, confirmed on en.wiki (See [1]). Uploads by user seems to be self-promotion. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: Checked user rights log and he doesn't seem to have any special rights. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ah right. I removed the wrong and misleading tags from the user page. Yann (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Man with an erection

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Stefan84007 uploaded File:Man with an erection.jpg. This seems like a pretty normal bit of exhibitionism, but the image is just a different crop of File:Man with erection.jpg, uploaded by Fkk-lover84. Fkk-lover84 is globally locked, so the new account should probably be blocked. I believe we could safely delete all of the uploads without losing anything of value, but others may disagree. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done Yann (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Possible socks

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Upload files of the depicting the same place back-to-back. Kinda obvious? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Deferred to RFCU. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Obvious RafikiSykes sock

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Naturiss (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of User:RafikiSykes. They have continued uploading content in exactly the same areas as User:CallyMc. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@World's Lamest Critic: Hi,
This account was autopatrolled already, but the right was removed. Could you please request a check user? Regards, Yann (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Done:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Naturiss. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Pablo youngs

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Repeatedly uploading copyright violations. --114.150.118.228 01:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done Last warning sent, copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Yesterday, User:Lina Merlin appeared and uploaded a copyrighted image of cricketer Jasprit Bumrah. This was added to the English Wikipedia article [2]. I nominated it for speedy deletion. It was deleted, re-uploaded and deleted again. It is a clear copyright violation. See [3]. Today, the same image was uploaded by a different user, User:Lakshmanlaksh and again added to the article on English Wikipedia. This user claims that the image is licensed under CC because it appears in a YouTube video [4] which is under CC. Lakshmanlaksh is repeatedly removing the speedy deletion tag I've left on the file. He refuses to accept that a YT user "releasing" a copyrighted image under a CC license does not make this an acceptable. It is, IMHO, a clear copyright violation. I have done as much as I am able, here and at En.Wikipedia. Could an admin take a look? Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

 Comment Flickrwashing too. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done Main account blocked for one week, alternative account indefinitely. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

What is a category made for ?

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

There is a problem between me and Eddaido, about Packard automobiles categories. Eddaido consider he can put some informations (i estimate useless) in a category, without a reliable source (a website driven by Packard "loving users"). I clearly disagreed : as Commons:Category says, to "associate a single subject with a given category", you can add "some extra text [which] can be useful to precisely define it" - not everything you estimate personnaly relevant. To late to avoir wheel war (sorry about that), but i hope an administrator may settle this debate. Sammyday (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • Thanks for drawing the community’s attention to this issue, Sammyday. The category in question is Category:1939 Packard automobiles, and a cursory look at its history shows not only edit warring on both parts, but especially Sammyday’s persistent erasing of other editor’s work, based on the toxic notion that Commons should be a mere binder for media files and that “data” (that is, information concerning said media files) should be hosted instead in Wikipedia and/or in Wikidata — based on the misinterpreted quote above and on widespread disregard of general Commons’ practice. This is not a case of mere vandalism or mere misuse of AN/U, this is an instance of active destruction of Commons content, nominally in favour of other projects’ but not even excusable by the hosting of said content elsewhere (as in the infamous cases of geolocational and biographical data syphoned off to WD) — it should be exemplarily stomped.
Eddaido, since it is likely that Sammyday will find powerful allies among a certain stripe of users, including admins, I recommend you host the vandalized content at Category talk:1939 Packard automobiles and/or 1939 Packard automobiles (strangely Commons “galleries” are given all kinds of pass; maybe this time that could be put to good use). Eventually good practices will be restored and, even if deleted now, the content you defend will be able to be readded to the category page and further developed thereon.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
General comment more than anything but Eddaido what is the purpose of the data? does it help with categorising images in any way?,
Tuválkin - Should this content not be on articles tho ?, Unless it helps with categorising images then to the average user it would essentially be useless information wouldn't it?, –Davey2010Talk 15:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • @Davey2010: The issue here is the stated opposition of the deleting party, not any details about the deleted content. If the argument were instead that this data is unsuitable for any reason, then this matter would be less problematic, but the argument for supression is that any data should not exists in Commons, incl. data that helps with categorizing images. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm with Eddaido on this one. There could be better explanation of what the information is, but that is no reason to delete it. Certainly no reason to 3RR delete it, across three categories, with only the slightest discussion at User_talk:Sammyday#Packard which seems to amount to no more than "I don't understand it".
I don't understand this table either, so I would like Eddaido to please explain some of it (and for 3RR reasons, I'll happily be the one to restore it). What's a "chassis number"? Is this a chassis "model number" rather than a serial number (the usual meaning)? Do we know approximate production volumes for these?
If some similar information for be provided for Cord 810/812 I'd be delighted, as that's a group of cars where their identification is difficult and such a guide on the Commons category would be most welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Copyvio

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Touchedamour

Possibly everything is copyvio. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

All files deleted and user blocked by 4nn1l2. --Túrelio (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ser Amantio di Nicolao

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

No evidence of a recent problematic misunderstanding of COM:DW which does not exclude raising possible concerns at DR. Caution with F2C is still advisable and using {{Licensed-PD}} when appropriate could be useful to save reviewers time. — Racconish 💬 18:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios after warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Picking the last notification on their page, the upload was 7 April 2019. An upload from over 3 months ago is not "continues copyvios after warning", it's a housekeeping problem. If you are aware of more recent uploads that are copyvios, such as within the last fortnight, it would be useful to point it out.
Note that I have just checked their last 100 uploads, which do all use F2C. None was an obvious copyvio issue. I would agree that SAdN does have an open housekeeping issue they should work on, and that has been discussed previously here (check the archive).
@Racconish: as prior closing admin for any views on whether more action should be required from SAdN. --Fæ (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Two concerns were expressed in May 2019 about Ser Amantio di Nicolao's use of F2C, copyvios on food packaging and mass uploads of files of low educational value, to which they responded by committing to more caution and avoiding to use F2C for a time. Should there be a need to remind them of their commitments or to tighten these commitments, we would need to have a better grasp of the alleged breach(es), after May 9, 2019. — Racconish 💬 12:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Racconish: I looked at a few hundred recent uploads.
DW, maybe PD or FoP but that's far from certain:
DW:
And many files in Category:Tatting shuttles. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
It seems to me the main issue with the files listed above is a lack of attention to COM:DW, which is not substantially different from the packaging issues raised before. Ser Amantio di Nicolao, please comment on this. — Racconish 💬 15:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I had assumed that it does not apply in the images in question. I saw nothing wrong with the interior files of the Spanish church...I would assume age applies there. We've accepted images of Ndebele pieces from museums before; I don't honestly see these as any different. As for the tatting shuttles, the entire Flickr stream seems to me to have been set up by the person who made them, which led me to assume that DW does not apply as the artist is the one who released the images in the first place. If I'm wrong about any of these I'm wrong, but I am trying to do some research. I'm not just firing willy-nilly. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: It's hard to tell how old the church stuff is, or the Ndebele pieces. If the tatting shuttles were made by the photographer, they're fine. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Alexis Jazz: Such was my understanding of the shuttles...there's evidence on the Flickr stream that they were produced by the photographer for sale. I'll admit the church stuff is an educated guess, but given the location (Valladolid) and it's looks I suspect I'm safe. (en:Valladolid Cathedral says it's a Baroque church, which squares with the photos). As for the Ndebele pieces...we have similar photographs of pieces from museums, and I doubt very much there's any likely difference in age. I may be wrong with them, but I was only following the evidence I had in front of me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: It would be good if you could transfer some of that evidence to the file descriptions. ({{Licensed-PD}}) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Odsnapojdjsjsjjs

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can an admin check this out? Seems to be using DRs as a mean to get a message of why I nom-ed his files across. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done Files deleted, most DRs kept-closed, user warned. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hei20011016 copyvios

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Heeheemalu

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The IP tampered two licence review templates: special:diff/360213470 special:diff/360493805.--Roy17 (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I just realised, Heeheemalu's editing history largely overlaps with the IP's. Both tampered templates were done on Heeheemalu's uploads.--Roy17 (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
IP blocked for a week by Jdx.
I just took a look. IP did not just tamper frw but also inserted a lot of fake {{QualityImage}} to Heeheemalu's uploads, for example: special:diff/358315482 special:diff/358414486. (All the +17 bytes edits were adding QualityImage.)
It also seems that, the IP was actively removing images from Category:Skylines in Taipei and adding Heeheemalu's uploads to that (all the plus and minus 32 bytes edits).
A warning to Heeheemalu, stop any disruptive edits. You were given a last warning by admin Magog the Ogre in May 2019. You may be blocked for a long period of time if you continue copyright violation or disruptive edits.--Roy17 (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Closing rights request by Sachinthonakkara

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can an admin please close the above rights request. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done by User:1989. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sourya33

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:142 Eva Nilsson and 143 Clara Nilsson Moseby in Musselloppet 2019.jpg

Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Nothing that requires administrative action here. To discuss the nomination, use Commons talk:Featured picture candidates. If you think the picture should be deleted -- open an RfD. --A.Savin 13:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

Cart has asked me to refer a difference of opinion here. The nomination was made in good faith by an experienced and considerate user. I, however, do not believe it is appropriate for candidintrusive photos of unsuspecting individuals to be the subject of FP nominations. These two women are identified by name. Sure, they were in a public event so could expect to be photographed. But they were not competing to win. Charles (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

To clarify: The photo(s) were not candid, I was standing about 2-3 meters from the running line, right in front of the subjects I photographed. In this photo one of the runners even smiled at me. I was the only person except for the runners in a ca 10-15 meters radius so they noticed me alright. Once again Charles, you are selecting your words to twist this and make me appear bad. I suspect this has less to do with the runners and more to do with your dislike for my photos and nominations at FPC. --Cart (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Not at all, I have opposed quite a few pictures of people at FP for the same reason. Mostly children I think, but there have been a few adults. Charles (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Objecting to photos is one thing, but using the phrase "candid photos of unsuspecting individuals" is totally uncalled for. You are talking about me as if a was dirty old man laying in wait for victims. (For the record, I'm a middle-aged woman.) --Cart (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to say, but I thought FP should be quite eyecatching? This snap has nothing interesting. It would fail anyway regardless of the consideration of subjects' consent.--Roy17 (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Now that is a totally valid reason to oppose it, one I can absolutely respect. If all reviews were like that there would be no problem, but Charles has got this into something totally different. --Cart (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sorry Charles but I definitely agree with Cart on this situation. We have plenty of pictures on Commons, many of them FPs, that are of subjects who aren't famous, distinguished or noteable. How about this image that only just passed? The subject there very probably doesn't know her photo is on this website, and no one objected there. There are plenty more in the portrait gallery, and it's always been the practice to nominate such images at FP. This image was perfectly legal to take and to upload, and so I think it should be perfectly appropriate to nominate it at FP. It's no different to a newspaper covering this race taking pictures of the participants to illustrate its story. Roy17's reason for opposing - that he doesn't find the photo interesting - is of course quite appropriate, but there is nothing wrong per se with nominating the image at FP. Legally we are on safe ground as long as covered by a personality-rights warning, and morally speaking I don't see much wrong with this seeing that photos of this kind litter the news media and that anyone entering a race of this kind can expect that being photographed is a possibility. Cmao20 (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for for contribution Cmao20 but I thought Cart wanted me to post the discussion here for admins to give their views about the probity of featuring people in FP nominations who don't know this is going on. Charles (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

It is customary for non-admins to discuss here too. --Cart (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
  •  Comment I see nothing wrong of nominating this kind of pictures to FP. I did quite a number myself. In this case, there is specially no issue, as it is a public event. So I mostly agree with Cart. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple accounts promoting Best Western

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've noticed a number of apparent single purpose accounts used to upload promotional content related to Best Western hotels:

I'm wondering how others feel about this.

  1. Should we require verified permission statements for some or all of these files or accounts? (How likely is it that the uploaders personally created the works that they uploaded as their own works? It looks like none of the accounts using organization names have been verified as required by Commons:Username policy#Well-known names and names of organizations.)
  2. At least the last two are obvious sockpuppets. Note the close correlation in time and identical errors made (compare Special:Diff/340963441 with Special:Diff/340966702 and Special:Diff/341924218 with Special:Diff/341924482). Is there reason to suspect additional sockpuppetry or other irregularities?

Comments from the users named are also welcome. (Everyone mentioned should have received automatic notifications as their user names are linked here.) For example, it would be interesting to understand if this is something that is encouraged or coordinated at a corporate level, or if you are acting on your own initiative. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Henry360

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Upload infringing images multiple times, remove {{Delete}} without consensus, refuse to communicate. Affected pages:

Catherine Laurence 05:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days for copyvios and unconstructive editing. Gbawden (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much. -- Catherine Laurence 06:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:Artinpl

Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

I'm not too familiar with relevant policy but is "delete yourself" a (1) good reason to reverse a speedy deletion copyvio request and/or (2) a threat of some kind? In any case, very unpleasant. You may also see this at enWP. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

This edition was sneaky, this user is deleting and disputing my work wherever he can. Artinpl (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
If someone only ever uses h-self as a source to identify portraits & other images and then to profess in a multitude of Wikipedia aticles that such an identification is legitimate as sourced (i.e. the kind of "work" which is not allowed there), someone else is bound to discover and disclose that eventually. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
SergeWoodzing, sorry, but I don't get it. A depicted 16th-century painting is tagged {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} and you requested deletion because of "Copyright claim at Flickr is unacceptable"??? --Achim (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Edit: Ah, just noticed File talk:Anonymous Lady with eagle pendant.jpg. --Achim (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for asking! I did not want to remove the PD-Art|PD-old-100 tag, only because I've experienced that the uploader is prone to edit wars and unpleasant remarks and I'd like to cut down on that. The uploader has made changes since I reported this. Actually, there is no evidence of any kind, with a reliable source, that this image is old. That, together with the fact that the uploader h-self alleges to have a copyright on it "© ML, all rights reserved" here, to me would make any PD-Old tagging inappropriate. This could be a drawing of anyone, by anyone, done anytime, for all we know, as based solely on sources and allegations by the uploader. (I could draw a "famous" great-x25-grandmother, upload her to Geni or Ancestry & then try to get her into Wikipedia articles.) We need reliable sources, and all we're getting from this user is things like "I am signing my own research with my name, this should be sufficient, no matter where published." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
So flickr/facebook looks like 2nd-hand source. Artinpl, where did you File:Anonymous Lady with eagle pendant.jpg scan from? --Achim (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Just to be clear, pages created by the uploader h-self at Flickr, Facebook, Pintarest etc. (as addressed here) never have any other sources than the uploader h-self, as far as I've seen. In other words, unfortunaltely for Commons, this particular item looks like the tip of an iceberg. I hope I'm wrong, but the whole thing certainly needs attention. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Source, references, and decription are clear. I am not doing anything wrong here, as Artinpl is individual, educational project. Here is some more clarification about the file [5], which represent my own research and flickr/facebook are frequently a source here. The file from flickr is not the same, hence it was added as refs. I made many valuable contributions and ceded to public domain many of my works and this is only aimed at making harm to me and show how meaningless I am. I am not making any editions to this article as it is owned by one user, who do not accept any new ideas. Artinpl (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

User also keeps reverting here arbitrarily, to add h own unsourced conjecture over and over, without using talk. Speedy deletion there is warranted, due to obvious copyright violation. The file, as unidentified & not reliably sourced in any way, is under the uploader's personal copyright as given in the Flickr link also submitted above.

Claims of article ownership are far from factual, as are claims of being persecuted. Accusations of that type, with no basis, constitute personal attacks. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I will wait for another few days for the user to reply to Achim's question before reverting the conjecture again & tagging that image for speedy deletion again as a copyvio on an unknown image under copyright to the uploader. Nothing (nothing) other than the user's own allegations has been stated yet to explain or substantiate

  1. where this image came from to the uploader?
  2. where the original is today?
  3. whether or not it actually is old?
  4. who it represents as a portrait?
  5. why it is under copyright to the uploader?
  6. why the user has added it to various Wikipedia articles with no other source (none at all) but h-self?

The lack of all that information is unacceptable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

As per h own info in the first link provided above, the user is also known as "Marcin Latka" and the image is copyrighted to that name in the Flickr link. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Looks like a permanent block on enWP for "Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host" and subsequent block evasion under a new name there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

All this looks like stalking. Artinpl (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sandrine Mégret

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Per Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Postaire. Note: blocked on the Wikipedia in French for the same reason. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Block evasion by PaulBaker1980

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

User:PaulBaker1980 (a sock of blocked en.wiki editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ben2719941) had been trolling my talk page here on Commons and at User talk:Hughesdarren, including by editing other people's comments. User:Elcobbola blocked the account after my request here, but he's now back as IP 175.34.223.127 doing more of the same at User talk:Hughesdarren, here, and at my talk page here (which is close to making a legal threat). Would somebody be kind enough to do the necessary? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I note that geolocate suggests 175.34.223.127 is a "Likely Static IP", so an IP block might prove effective. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done 1989 (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Queen Akaaa

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done Uploads nuked Gbawden (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Daniela Galvis Mora

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=361084975"