Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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
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

  • 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.

Yukitanooki & theinstandmatrix

[edit]

This user doesn't appear to be abiding by Commons:Licensing nor doesn't seem to be acknowledging warnings.

They have recently uploaded three obvious copyvios (File:Mobile Legends Bang Bang 2025 logo.png, File:抖音上中国对巴拉望岛的主权主张（郑和岛）.jpg, File:Baidu Map (Nine Dash Line by China).jpg), and when confronted with open deletion requests of their remaining uploads, also about copyright, removes the DR tags of it ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) in hopes of stopping its deletion out of process.

Even when reverted and warned about it ([8]), they removed the tags again ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]) and blanked their talk page ([16]), indicating acknowledgement.

At the moment I recommend giving this user a final warning not to remove DR tags again nor upload more copyvios. If they still refuse to abide by warnings and continue their disruptive editing, they should be blocked. theinstantmatrix (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is stated that it is under the Apache License 2.0 and based on Android Open Source Project on Legal Notice. Yukitanooki (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

they just attempted to delete the complaint. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and removed that comment. please stop removing comments. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 06:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You kept deleting the file and vandalizing the page, but it is under the Apache License or AOSP. This is stated in the ColorOS screenshot, File:OPPO ColorOS 15 Screenshot.png.

Here is the license that Oppo provides on their website: https://www.oppo.com/my/store/contents/legal/open-source-software-notice/ The other Android screenshot is under the Apache License. You can refer to the website for more details.
Yukitanooki (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should be blocked for disruptive editing, as you kept denying that the screenshots are under the Apache License, which is clearly stated on their website. Yukitanooki (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I warned both users to stop edit warring.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G., Yukitanooki is removing comments from this page. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 06:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And also at least once removed this section. They are (barely) allowed to remove comments from their user talk page, but not to remove complaints against them here. I would support a short block to remind them (Yukitanooki) that was a pretty serious violation. - Jmabel ! talk 15:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Info - Yukitanooki has been blocked for 3 months by The Squirrel Conspiracy for socking in DR discussion. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Socking in DRs is only a 3 month block? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 19:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infolearner23

[edit]

Infolearner23 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Repeatedly uploading copyrighted images --Chtrede (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: File:Witbooi in 2025.jpg This is another one, just uploaded some minutes ago --Chtrede (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And another one the user just uploaded again File:Official portrait, 2025.jpg --Chtrede (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And one more File:Witbooi Offical Photo.jpg --Chtrede (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for a week, files already deleted. Yann (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madhavgn007

[edit]

Madhavgn007 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Keeps uploading out of scope images. Uploads have already been wiped twice and user has been notified about COM:SCOPE. They still keep uploading the same type of content. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked as NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apply for a limited expiration date on my block on Commons

[edit]

Good evening, dear Pi.1415926535 administrator,

I would like to apologize for the poor quality contributions I have made, as well as for my failure to comply with your warnings, which unfortunately led to the blocking of my account.

Despite this situation, I respectfully request clemency. I would like, if possible, for you to consider temporarily unblocking my account, or for the block to be limited in time, with a clearly defined expiration date.

I sincerely thank you for your attention to my request, and please accept, dear Pi.1415926535 administrator, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Here is the link that summarizes my blockage : Special:BlockList/Blessingedi76 Blessingedi76 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Your partial block will be lifted when you show that you understand the reasons for it and have taken steps to rectify the problem. Blocks are preventative, they are not intended to be punitive. Abzeronow (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening dear administrator, noted. Blessingedi76 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And also I would like to ask for your clemency so that you can show me another way that exists to make a demonstration on Commons. Blessingedi76 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
?? Trade (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me, they are just repeating their request for an unblock or the shortening of the their partial block. Since this partial block is not a punishment, there is no need for "clemency", the partial block will be lifted when the user has demonstrated that they have the ability to make productive edits. Abzeronow (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that my partial blocking is the result of poor-quality contributions that did not comply with Commons rules and standards, despite the warnings I received. I fully acknowledge my mistakes and realize the importance of contributing constructively, rigorously, and in compliance with the project's rules.
To address this, I took the time to reread the help pages and the essential guidelines for contributing to Commons, particularly those related to the quality of uploaded files, copyright, and file descriptions. I also committed to improving my education and asking questions before contributing if I have any doubts.
Thank you for your understanding and I remain at your disposal for any further information. Blessingedi76 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please disclose your plans and ideas on how, if at all, you plan to participate in future Commons:ISA Tool/Challenges. As already disclosed, your usage with these programs on a likely mislead financial motivation (you forgot to mention foundation:PAID among the rule pages you read - you were likely expecting a financial gain stemming from Commons edits) is the root cause of your block. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in this campaign with the aim, first, of contributing to Commons, and second, of winning an award. However, I did not go about it well. That is why I received numerous warnings and finally a block. In any case, I apologize profusely for my bad behavior and for not respecting the rules established for the campaign. Blessingedi76 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Grand-Duc: I don't think foundation:PAID applies to entering contest sponsored by organizations associated with the Foundation itself. It would never have occurred to me to do such a thing. Uploading with the tags related to the competition seems to implicitly indicate that you are competing for a possible financial reward. Did any of the participants make any further disclosure?
@Blessingedi76: I suggest you hang back for a month or two. You created quite a mess, which other people had to try to clean up. Let people cool down a little before you resume activity. Also, when you come back (but please, as I said, wait a month or two before dealing with that), please be clear what exactly you intend to work on that is unlikely to create similar problems. - Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that PAID is most likely not intended for in-Wikiuniverse activities. I used it only as argument to illustrate that Blessingedi76 seemed to get sidetracked: in his unblocking request, he wrote about licensing and copyright, scope and file descriptions, saying that he understood the zoo of policies. But he never wrote about the issues at hand: spamming bad structured data. That's why I pointed out that, while he seemed to try to make a sweeping grasp at any imaginable policy, he missed something related to his suspected motivation. So, if he truly wants to show kind of a kowtow to get unblocked, then he should have taken stuff like PAID, as he did with other mainstays of our project, into consideration. On the other hand, the wording "You must disclose each and any employer, client, intended beneficiary and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." does presently not directly exclude in-universe activities, so, expecting a monetary reward offered in such a competition could warrant a disclosure... That should be the Foundation's job to clarify, though.
@Bedivere, about AI: instead of AI, I'd rather say the pattern of remarks is more likely stemming from the educational / professional background of the applicant (cf. his user page). I got the distinct feel of a try at mollifying (the people with blocking power), using psychological techniques. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it's pretty easy to generate remarks like that using ChatGPT. I think it's pretty obvious these are not their work. Bedivere (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a feeling these remarks are all AI-generated... Bedivere (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I would expect to see actual productive edits in other namespaces / projects before I would consider unblocking from file namespace. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think their responses are wholly generated by AI. For one sample response, Duplichecker's AI detector scored "Human Written Content - 99.8%, AI Written Content - 0.2%."
This doesn't mean that I agree to their disruptive structured data contributions, though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any clue why they keep talking like this? I can barely understand what's he's trying to convey because he's being so general and unspecific Trade (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shubhamchitte1

[edit]
✓ Done Blocked for a week, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New sockpuppets of globally locked User:Wave of Pandas

[edit]
Same useless images of Hong Kong at night. Krok6kola (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: The older, currently recognised master account is actually User:Zestsees, on these, Wave of Pandas was a later sock of theirs. Belbury (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Belbury: That is fine. I got the Wave of Pandas account from Meta. All I want is that account (by whatever name) stopped. Krok6kola (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gatto bianco

[edit]

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

User is requesting the deletion of multiple dozens of files that are obviously PD-simple / PD-textlogo with the copypasted rationale "copyright violation". Skyshifter (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days pending further investigation. Yann (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked indef. as per [17]. Closing all DRs. Yann (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yann: They are back as 2.194.241.191 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked by Bedivere. Yann (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conkerpox627

[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Bedivere (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lock on the way All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cymatilus

[edit]

Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Last warning sent, all files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giuse07licata

[edit]
✓ Done Blocked for a week, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Giuse07licata. Yann (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vaca louca dedo

[edit]

Eduardo Gottert (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for socking, all porn deleted. Yann (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colin

[edit]

Colin's only contribution this calendar year is this pair of insult-laden remarks: [18], [19]. I'm one of the targets: he characterized one of my edits as "stupid".

I requested that he take back that insult, and have waited well over 24 hours without response; given the infrequency of his recent contributions, I have no way to know whether he saw my request, but since he remarks in one of his edits that he is responding to a ping, I would have to guess he saw my ping as well.

Given that it would be nearly meaningless to briefly block someone who is barely participating, I have no what (if anything) is an appropriate sanction here, but it does not seem to me that being an infrequent participant here should constitute a license to insult people when you do show up. - Jmabel ! talk 05:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I realize that Colin has in the past been a very good contributor, and I am not disputing that. Again, that is not (or should not be) license to insult other users. - Jmabel ! talk 05:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: the way I read that discussion, you were the first supporter of a proposal insulting an uploader by calling them a troll. I imagine that is why you got mentioned in Colin's comment, not because of your technical prowess in using css-crop. Disclosure: I think that one of the "insult-laden remarks" by Colin linked above was extremely insightful. Commander Keane (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I was not endorsing the categorization of the user in question. I was endorsing the remedy of adding a watermark if there have been repeated issues of someone making legal threats, so that it would take deliberate action for a reuser to remove the appropriate attribution. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, no, his characterization of "stupid" did not refer to that edit: "the above linked post has the idiocy of a watermark saying this attribution must be retained, and then immediately below, an example of using it on Wikipedia with the attribution cropped off. I thought that level of stupidity was restricted to US presidents". I absolutely do not feel it was "stupid" or "idiotic" of me to show the technical means of doing what JayCubby had said was possible, but did not know how to do. - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I recall someone being sanctioned for calling something stupid. It's not ideal. But if it's something on the level of what my second grader might say if she gets frustrated, it's probably easier to have a little laugh about it and otherwise shrug it off. GMGtalk 16:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the course of his post, besides the word "stupid," Colin wrote, "Watermarking is a dumb ass solution… the above linked post has the idiocy of a watermark saying this attribution must be retained…" Are you really saying that is acceptable? - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colin resorts to personal attacks when he can't convince someone else. I got some attacks some years back. Hopefully, he is not so much around these days. Yann (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alfreld

[edit]

0x0a (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, last file deleted. Yann (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frypie

[edit]

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

This user has uploaded hundreds, if not thousands of artwork reproductions with only {{PD-Art}}. I have requested them several times to fix the license of the files as PD-Art is not sufficient. Frypie refuses to do so, and continues to upload files with PD-Art only. May be someone could explain them again. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Slowking4. Yann (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1

[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Put down the stick and walk away from the horse. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Can you please review the revert of my correct edit by User:Adamant1? Thanks. 186.175.52.183 23:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is referring to me nominating File:Chondrodactylus Turneri.jpg for speedy deletion due to being a low quality image by a non-contributor, which they reverted. The IP is free to turn it into a normal deletion request per "if you disagree with this media file's speedy deletion, replace this tag with a regular deletion request." Reverting it and then reporting me to ANU clearly isn't the appropriate way to handle this though. An admin should really just block the IP for trolling and filling a false ANU complaint. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As long as they block both of us I have no objection. How easy is it to accuse people of trolling here?! Is it a kind of enmity against IPs? 186.175.52.183 23:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the speedy deletion tag, as the file is COM:INUSE. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And in many places. I didn't want to refer to that not to embarrass the gentleman. 186.175.52.183 23:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 186.175.52.183 23:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Adamant1, the image is not specially bad when compared to the remainder of actual photographic stills in Category:Chondrodactylus turneri. Furthermore, according to the description, it's a depiction of a gravid female, so unique at this time in our collection. While I am indeed very ready to nominate technically and qualitatively bad pictures as being out of scope per COM:EDUSE, this image here is something that does not present itself for that. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I thought it wasn't in use when I nominated it for deletion. It still doesn't justify the IP reverting me and then immediately reporting me to ANU though. All they had to do was revert it to a normal deletion request or leave a message on my talk page if they didn't want to do that. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well that "the IP did not revert and then report you". The IP reported you because you reverted a correct edit by an IP. What is your problem with IPs? 186.175.52.183 00:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's on you for reverting me without using a changeset comment. It just comes off like trolling. It's not against the rules to revert someone, otherwise you'd be blocked right now. I wouldn't have reverted if you have left a changeset comment saying why you made the edit though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you got your lesson I'm done here. 186.175.52.183 00:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


User:Levingh

[edit]

0x0a (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly attempted upskirts

[edit]

There is an user here whose photo i believe to be an failed attempt at taking upskirts photos

Any suggestions as to how i should proceed? Trade (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if this is worth bothering emergencywikimedia.org with so i have not emailed them for now Trade (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Riverlife92

[edit]

0x0a (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Files wiped, user blocked. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sabil Khoer Al Munawar

[edit]

0x0a (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdsonCordeirodeSouza

[edit]

0x0a (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@0x0a: The name of this user seems reminiscent of Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ricardinho da Souza Silva 7.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
seems to be different persons. See en:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of EdsonCordeirodeSouza and en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of EdsonCordeirodeSouza.
✓ Done Socking anyway. All files deleted. Ricardinho da Souza Silva has a huge sock farm. I wouldn't be surprised if they are all the same. I also blocked Ditongo ponto G (talk · contribs) and Erika Santana ponto G (talk · contribs). Yann (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. and Yann: Ricardinho da Souza Silva 7 socks can't be identified by name. The behavior of these accounts doesn't match RdSS7's M.O. at all. EdsonCordeirodeSouza is their own sockmaster with three confirmed socks, which have now been properly tagged accordingly. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Actuspin22

[edit]

0x0a (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edge Interactive Publishing Inc.

[edit]

Edge Interactive Publishing Inc. (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

It seems to me that this user is uploading poor quality porn. NSFW: File:ERA110 Erika Kole nude R 4 030.jpg and File:GMNT-NLN07-02 Noname Jane nude2 RfuillUnused violet solo 057.jpg do not have a license, and seems to be upscaled. Do we need these files? Yann (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yann: Half a dozen are in use. Some have tickets.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but other pictures are of better quality. Yann (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a problem for DR, rather than ANU. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 20:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=1020625311"