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
113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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 (index)

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:Allforrous

[edit]

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

Category spam. Re-created categories previously deleted following CfD consensus, reverted edits to get rid of deletion notices (here, here calling it "vandalism"), reverted edits that add a ton of unnecessary categories, some of which were deleted and then re-created (e.g. here, here, here etc.) After having several notices put on their profile (which were not responded to) they re-created Category:Space Jam: A New Legacy characters instead. There is a talk page notice from Jmabel from last week that seems to indicate they have a habit of creating superfluous categories. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also my remarks and Allforrus's nearly content-free response at User_talk:Allforrous#Category:History_and_events. - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really get what the issue is here since they have been a member since 2010 and have almost 50,000 edits. Their response to your comment is just weird to. Is it possible someone highjacked their account or something? Or maybe they died and it got taken over by a family member who happens to be a child? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category spam? --Allforrous (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Allforrous: while you do quite a bit of good work, including the creation of a fair number of good categories, I believe that you create more really weirdly inappropriate categories than any other significantly experienced user. Besides Category:History_and_events which I called you out over, there has also been Category:Animations of epistemology, Category:Videos of special, and Category:Historical persons (unlike the others apparently not deleted, but currently empty), not to mention these recreations of categories that there had already been consensus to delete. It is hard to understand how, with this much work under your belt, you haven't gained more of an understanding of what is and is not appropriate in this area. - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done 2 weeks block limited to category namespace. --A.Savin 12:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is a user allowed to blank their user page in a manner that hides the fact that they've been blocked? - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we've ever reached consensus on what type of talk page blanking is permitted on Commons. I'm not particularly bothered by it; the block log exists for a reason. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:RUI Thomas Fan

[edit]

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

Was blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia for both editing and responding on their talk page (see here) and refuses to let the situation go (see my talk page). TheWikiToby (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Both users blocked one week. Please behave. Bedivere (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't at all see why User:TheWikiToby was blocked here. Can someone fill me in on what I'm missing? - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel basically feeding a troll and bringing en.wikipedia drama along the way. I wouldn't object an unblock if they get the point of the block. Bedivere (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They (User:TheWikiToby) should be unblocked, I fail to see why they should be blocked like Jmabel. Blocks are supposed to be preventative not punitive. Bidgee (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a punitive block at all. You can just have a read at their talk page. They were just feeding a troll while at the same time importing a foreign controversy, by responding to obvious trolling. This is obviously just my stance and how I think the issue can be settled for a moment, given that they were given only one-week blocks. TheWikiToby has not asked for an unblock and I have already said I don't oppose such action but they should acknowledge they were at fault by feeding an obvious troll and bringing drama here from the English Wikipedia. "Please behave". Bedivere (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

user:Odinbait

[edit]

Odinbait (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) After the 'last warning' user is re-uploading copyvio with deliberately false PD rationale: [1]; uses rude language: [2]. 188.123.231.76 13:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ardilla07

[edit]

Ardilla07 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) The user insists on uploading an image classified as fair use and insists that it is in the public domain in the United States (when it is not even from that country). Also insists on an external Telegram permission and doesn't show a formal permission via COM:VRT, and tries to remove the maintenance template. Taichi (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The file was deleted by EugeneZelenko on 2 June and deleted by myself on 10 June Gbawden (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I warned the user, all uploads are already deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tshering Youngming

[edit]

Tshering Youngming (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information), The user still publish his advertising. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked, everything deleted. Yann (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MrKeefeJohn

[edit]
Moved from COM:AIV: not vandalism —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User: MrKeefeJohn (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
Reason for reporting: The user continues to revert my changes on Category:Sisal (company), among other things with the wrong methods for moving categories. In fact, I recently moved Category:SISAL to Category:Sisal (company), since the company is called today Sisal and not SISAL[1], and following the same title adopted on en.wiki, but the user continues, here and on Wikidata, to cancel the move manually for me. InterComMan (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the category was created, not by me, as Category:SISAL and, being an Italian company, according to the title in the Italian wikipedia it:SISAL then moved yesterday, 10/6/2024, without any discussion MrKeefeJohn (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There should have been consensus on the move of that category. The Italian Wikipedia uses SISAL and the English Wikipedia, Sisal. The category here was originally named SISAL. It seems to me that it's just a personal choice by @InterComMan. Please discuss the move before proceeding again either way. Bedivere (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CFD started: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:SISAL. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a personal choice, but a modification based on reliable sources. InterComMan (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This can be discussed at the above CFD. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 19:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from COM:AIV since it's not vandalism and notified accused user. Firstly, both parties should take a second to cool down, stop edit warring and discuss and come to some sort of consensus on the talk page of either category. Secondly, I will start discussion at Category talk:SISAL. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for my edit war. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ↑ https://www.sisal.com/azienda/chi-siamo

User:Julesvernex2

[edit]

Not action is needed here. Better not to side-track the discussion started elsewhere. Yann (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2024 (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.

The discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diliff has caused many users, myself included, to become disappointed with Diliff's attitudes towards enforcing the CC licence on his images. However, it has reached a point where some users are overreaching things in their defamatory language. Users differ on whether Diliff is "copyright trolling", which he denies, with no actual evidence supplied by User:Normanlamont who initiated things at the Village Pump, of their circumstances, other than that they admit to thinking an image they found on the internet was public domain. However, what brings me here is the use of language that has legal meaning: "scam" and "extorted", which are both criminal activities. I have specifically asked Julesvernex2 and others to watch their language here and here and their reply here amounts to a challenge that I come here to complain to get him to stop.

I would like an admin to ask Julesvernex2 to show some restraint and that Commons is not Twitter where we can throw rocks and make outrageous claims about real people. We can't just accuse Commoners, and especially those who go under their full real name, of criminal behaviour, nor make serious defamatory comments without far more evidence than we have here. I think some are becoming carried away to the point where WMF might be asked to delete posts on legal grounds. -- Colin (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Julesvernex2 is right. Colin, it is very sad that you deny the evidence in spite of Diliff's own acceptance of the facts. Yann (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use Twitter/X nor have I used "scam" in these discussions, so this whole matter boils down to my use of "extorted" here: [3],[4]. Arguing that I used it in the legal sense and not as a figure of speech is nonsensical, since copyleft trolling is not a crime and I have never claimed it is. In any case, I will of course replace the offending word if the outcome of this discussion is that Colin's demand amounts to anything more than fear mongering. Julesvernex2 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copying this comment from the DR: Someone using the word "extortion" on the internet -- a term used ubiquitously as both hyperbole and a figure of speech -- is not libel. It is a fine bit of opinion for someone to interpret "I spent time determining you didn't really harm me, so now I am entitled to your money or else I'll sue you" as "extortion" in the non-legal sense. If you're trying to get people to be less harsh (and I won't disagree people have been quite harsh), I think these repeated allusions to defamation and libel are just going to add fuel to the fire. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding the difference between "extortionate" which is an adjective and "extortion" which is a crime. It is one thing for everyday speech between friends to use hyperbolic language, it is quite another for people to put words into print while discussing letters received asking for payment for misuse of a copyright work. I think some people on Commons think perhaps this is a private discussion between friends. It really isn't. To describe this activity as "extortion" would suggest such letters are criminally threatening. I'm disappointed that some folk here can't see the problem. Rhododendrites I'm not asking people to be less harsh out of any sympathy for Diliff's behaviour or some general "be nice" vibe. I'm asking people not to use this language because Being Stupid On The Internet is exactly what led to these people getting letters demanding money in the first place. Speaking as someone who lives in the UK, the damages for careless defamatory speech are, well, not just a few hundred quid but potentially life changing. And there's no need for it. We don't think Diliff's actions meet the CC Enforcement Principles and that's all that needs to be said going forward.
Rhododendrites, the link you refer to is about people making legal threats themselves, which would be the cases if Diliff turned up and banged on about libel and defamation. It is perfectly acceptable on Commons to discuss the legal danger posed to this site and its users from third parties. We do that, frankly, all the time we have a copyright discussion. So please don't post links like that to me as a threat that I might be the one in ToU trouble. I'm trying to stop foolishness. Don't please encourage it. There's absolutely no need. -- Colin (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment What we really need here is someone who dares to close this long overdue and very controversial RfD. --A.Savin 21:28, 11 June 2024 (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.

Secretum Mundi

[edit]

Secretum Mundi (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Keeps uploading files with bad author and probably license info, despite having been warned before. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked from uploading new files. Yann (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socks of same master

[edit]

This user is selfpromoting across Wikimedia projects from 2009, he don't understand about Commons policies and uploaded 100 photos and images of his jobs in that time, including posters. Because the long time of his socks, maybe the CU tools isn't necessary. Taichi (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I blocked the alternate accounts. Deletion should be decided on case by case basis. Images about theatre performances could be in scope. Yann (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blessingedi76

[edit]

Spot-checking this user's uploads, most of the recent ones I checked are found elsewhere on the internet and appear to be falsely claimed as own work. I've marked those ones with {{Copyvio}}, but don't really have the inclination to go through this user's >100 files. What's the best way forward? Can others please have a look? Marbletan (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Last warning sent, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Blessingedi76. Yann (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Marbletan (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalocsaizsuzsa and File:Kalocsaizsuzsa.jpg

[edit]

File:Kalocsaizsuzsa.jpg is likely going to continue to be nominated for deletion until either (1) it's deleted, or (2) the uploader is blocked.

I've got no reason not to believe the uploader's claim that they've sold the image and that the new rights holder now wants it taken down; that, however, doesn't have anything to do with Commons per se and seems to be an issue that the uploader and new rights holder need to resolve among themselves. The uploader knowingly released the license under a free image and it's not Commons' fault if they didn't fully understand what that meant. Similarly, it's not Commons' fault that the new rights holder purchasinged the image even though it had been released under such a license. If the new rights holder didn't know that, then that's also on the uploader for sure; however, the new rights holder isn't totally blameless in that scenario since they should've been more dilligent in checking on image before paying for its rights.

It seems the uploader has been given reasonable advice regarding what their options might be. They might be having difficulty understand what those options due language related issues. At the same time, they might have no problem understanding what their options are but just aren't interested in them. Commons might be able to help with any language issues if there's an admin or someone who can figure out what the first language of the uploader might be and try to explain things to them in it. On the other hand, Commons has no need to deal any further with the uploader's behavioral or attitude problems if all the uploader's going to do is keep up the frivilous DRs.

The file is being used in two articles: one on Esperanto Wikipdia and one an Magyar Wikipedia. Is there any admin capable of communicating with the uploader in either of those languages? Maybe one last attempt could be made to explain things to the uploader before deciding what to do next. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File now has autopatroller protection so they can't nominate it for deletion. Abzeronow (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked, DRs closed. This was already discussed several times. This user should send a DMCA notice. Yann (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1

[edit]

Consensus is this does not warrant administrative action. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 19:23, 13 June 2024 (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.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it from discussion of similar issues about other people, there is no limit on a user blanking their own user talk page. - Jmabel ! talk 14:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand people are free to revert comments on their talk if they feel like it. Plus Jeff G. added theirs to an existing section that had nothing to do with what they were messaging me about. I did take note of their complaint though, but there wasn't really anything to say about it and it's my prerogative if I want to remove off topic talk page comments. Although I am interested in where exactly @Jeff G.: claim that I was blocked for doing a similar thing in the past comes from. Since as far as I've never been blocked for reverting messages. Or conversely @Jeff G.: can admit this is a big nothing burger and we can move on. It's his choice. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly free to revert. But "Take the concern trolling bullshit somewhere else and fix your own god damn problems next time." isn't helpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this merits any administrative action, Jeff. But Adamant's revert message does underscore that as I've said previously, the user is a tad too argumentative for their own good. But this does appear to be as Adamant says a "nothing burger." I'll just say that we'd prefer users to archive their talk pages rather than blanking, but they're within their rights to blank. Abzeronow (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI, but I actually reverted the comment instead of replying to it in order to avoid any potential arguing. You can't really win on here though. Regardless, I have no issue re-adding the comment and archiving it if Jeff prefers, I usually do that anyway. Although I do ask that he start a new section for it next time instead of writing an off-topic comment in a conversation that had already been resolved. Otherwise I'm just going to revert it as off-topic. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2024 (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.
[edit]

DEVIREDDY PRASANNA KYMAR has so far made three uploads, all of which are copyright violations. This includes re-uploading the same image under a slightly different title after I tagged the original for speedy deletion. While I know it's not enforceable here, this user has also been disruptively adding these images to an article on EN. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Files deleted, user blocked one week, I guess that'll suffice for now. Bedivere (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newone

[edit]

This member has inserted website giaythucpham.vn (sale food wrapping paper) into many photos (more 250) uploaded from 24 February 2022 to present. A Viwiki mod said that it looked like advertising and advised this member to crop the photo but he/she refused. This member also uploaded many photos of theaters and communal houses. Per COM:FOP Vietnam all uploaded photographs of architectural and artistic works in public spaces from Vietnam, uploaded on Wikimedia Commons from 1 January 2023 onwards are not accepted in Commons due to Law No. 07/2022/QH15. 2402:800:6172:83F7:C405:FB15:213C:5020 05:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Example: File:NewOne - food label.jpg. Yann (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we really have a rule on Commons that bans that sort of watermark. Not actively welcomed, and it would make me give closer scrutiny to their uploads (lean more toward delete on borderline scope cases) but that's about it. At least that's how I see it.
Of course, if these images are against the policy of any given wiki, they can refuse to allow them to be used there. - Jmabel ! talk 14:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=884217823"