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

MaydayXD14

[edit]

MaydayXD14 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

The user insists on uploading the same logos that were previously deleted and now uploads protected content from the Spanish newspaper El País under a false license. He was already blocked months ago. Taichi (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months, all files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BCNViki Copyvios

[edit]

I noticed that this image [1] had a creative commons licence, which I found hard to believe for a contemporary artwork. I check the link and there was no mention of a CC licence. I then checked BCNViki's talkpage and found it full of notices regarding Copyvios. This seems to be a pattern of behaviour going back some years. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Deleted. Taivo (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TVPSICH38

[edit]

TVPSICH38 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Uploading copyvios well-after "final" warning. – Pbrks (t • c) 13:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Account blocked indef., all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimaribarre

[edit]

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

I blocked this user from uploading files. They have a very long record of copyright violations, and still nearly 1000 files to check. Please help. Yann (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lidia Iscano

[edit]

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

This user was once blocked for adding out of scope content, and I am not sure uploads and edits after that are OK. Please check. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Blocked by The Squirrel Conspiracy exactly as I was posting here. Thanks to the Squirrel. Yann (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done @Yann: I saw them hiding that they reuploaded deleted files by editing a closed DR, investigated their other edits, and determined they were a VoA. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im Fokus

[edit]

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

There is an apparent and quite nasty personal attack penned by Im Fokus in a closed DR, diff. The report is about this quote: "Fazit: so wie die Revolutionsgarden die kleinste Haarsträhne ahnden, die unter einem Kopftuch hervorlugt, so ahnden die Bürokraten hier den kleinsten Zipfel Wahlplakat.", translating as "Résumé: as the Revolutionary Guards sanction the smallest strand of hair peeking out from below the hijab, as do the local bureaucrats sanction the smallest corner of election posters." The comparison with the human rights violating Iranian forces is totally out of place and IMHO attacking any volunteer active in German FOP related DR. I'd like to ask at least for the removal of this comment by an administrator. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Magnus Manske - Unauthorized bot

[edit]

This user probably makes automated edits with bot, even though he has a separate account User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske), uploading images, which some are in poor quality and when better quality is accessible from source page. Example: File:Friedrich_Niethammer_-_niethammer_ankernder.jpg, 200 × 147 (12 KB), but when I download this image from source web page (https://www.artnet.com/WebServices/images/ll00242lldbeYGFgpbo72CfDrCWvaHBOcpXYC/friedrich-niethammer-ankernder-kurenkahn.jpg) it is 637 x 470, 101 KB. Please check this. 87.205.173.49 21:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you discuss this with Magnus previously? Why not? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Magnus Manske was not notified, and this particular issue could have been solved by discussing this with him. Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The user also let too many notices build up on his user talk page. It is rather difficult to navigate & edit, and includes too many templates such that MediaWiki can't handle displaying it, causing inclusion in Category:User talk pages where template include size is exceeded and a situation in which templates do not not work at the bottom. Some old browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kB. I noticed this while cleaning up Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage due to his edits - see the categories I referred to at the bottom. He also seems inattentive to such notices.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I see from you is #invoke:Autotranslate on my talk page. The categories were accidental duplicates. I have been running a script that gets images from auction houses. This has been fine-tuned over time as initially it had many not-quite-sufficient-information files. The script has now run though, and I will only use it to "top up" occasionally (eg new yead, new public domain). --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnus Manske: Hopefully, those sections should be visible there tomorrow after ArchiverBot runs (starting 07:45 UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... and they are, along with Special:Diff/974904386, in which you admitted to using a bot on your main account. Please stop that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royiswariii

[edit]

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

Uploading copyvios after final warning. – Pbrks (t • c) 03:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Bedivere (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to note that I've instated the block not because of the latest notification on possibly copyrighted files, but rather after thoughtful reflection on this thread on Yann's user talk page. "I want to consult if can upload a picture without a VRT", says Royiswariii, before including a DM from Bini's twitter saying explicitly they allow the use of their photographs but only for non-commercial uses. Very explicitly! "Just don't sell them". That makes them incompatible with Commons. Despite Yann's response that they should send a formal written permission, they did upload images based on such permission, which they apparently sent to VRT. These are obvious copyvios but I'll let them be for now because a ticket has been created. Bedivere (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore Yann gave them two final warnings [2] [3] which they removed. One month will suffice for now but next block will be longer. Bedivere (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CFA1877

[edit]

Category:Narrow gauge tracks in Catalonia CFA1877 This user is not complying with the criteria with speedy deletion. Keep deleting all the files second before to make the made-up case for the speedy deletion. Not to mention that the category Category:Narrow gauge tracks in Catalonia make all the sense to exist considering thah it give more especific information and follows the name criteria of the others categories on the same topic. After a warning in his talk page the user has no intention to change his procedure. It is not the first time that the user do not comply with the norms.

Crieria for speedy deletion: C2. Unuseful empty category If a category is empty and is obviously unusable, unlikely to be ever meaningfully used, it may be speedily deleted. Don't apply if the page is marked with an explanation of why it should be kept or if the deletion can be controversial, the category was recently unconsensually emptied, etc. Consider redirecting or renaming the category rather than deleting it.

9pm 00:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This user has a bad habit of fragmenting categories into new one subcategories just to accommodate a couple of images. It creates a category that does not exist at other levels and ends up being unnecessary. This causes unnecessary overcategorization, when there are already other categories that fulfill the functions. The user is perfectly aware of what he is doing, as he has already had clashes over the issue of categories and it is the second time in a few weeks that it has caused this problem again. CFA1877 (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every Category of Rail Tracks has his own of Narrow gauge tracks, so you would have to explain the reason to delete it. By now no convincing. This category has by now 6 images, and not a couple images as you trying to imply
(it had before you emptied all the category).
I guess you are trying to swift the topic. We can start talking how you did change official train station names erasing the local language only because it suited to you in spanish for political reasons. Your answer was: I do not understand english. So you have no credibility. We can see that with all the problem about the category. 9pm (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of double standard: In Category:Rail transport electrical substations in Spain the same user speedy deleted Category:Rail transport electrical substations in Catalonia with 3 files but the other subcategory with only 2 files was no problem. Even when the Category:Rail transport electrical substations in Catalonia matched with Category:Electrical substations in Catalonia. So you deleted useful information from another main category. I wait for any reasonable explanation 9pm (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mdaniels5757, if you tell me that's not the correct way for this kind of cases, I'm not going further that way. I take note. On the other hand, I have to say that the user 9pm has taken things to the extreme with this issue. I would be grateful if this person would stop creating problems by altering other users' categorization work to create his own 'space' when there are already other categories that fulfill the same functions. CFA1877 (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made the effort again to write on your talk page to make clear that how you are using the speedy deletion for your own benefit is not correct. 10 minuts later after replying in my talk page you apply again for the third time for speedy deletion.
Even if you try to swift the topic, here is the real issue: I'm still waiting for a response why the 2 categories were delete considering that every category of rail tracks has its own narrow gauge tracks and second the rail subelectrical stations in Catalonia was stick to electrical substations in Catalonia. Not only does not make the case for speedy deletion that you are also erasing proper categorization. 9pm (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:モトテツ

[edit]

Although repeatedly removing and warning in his talk page, this user didn't stop uploading unfree horse's statue picture; File:「讚ハイセイコ一号」像.jpg. Netora (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing warnings is not an issue. Started a DR for the uploaded file (because the previously deleted file per DR is not the same). Else, I will leave for my fellows. Regards, Aafi (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again User:Finoskov

[edit]

After the end of his first blocking he continued his behavior, to a greater extent than before. I think he has not recognized his mistakes. He wrote a comment with his signature in a template. See here.

Last weekend I spent many hours correcting errors which he made in the Mulhouse Museum categories. I only did the decades from 1870 to 1930. This week he ruined the work. Of course, he did not engage in any discussion on any of the points.

Now he obviously tried to solve one of the problems with "of the Musée" instead of "in the Musée". But he still put these categories under categories "in museum". That cannot be right!

Two points:

  1. 20 Reverts. Last weekend I had made changes (from wrong to right) and written edit comments. He made reverts (from right to wrong) without comments. That doesn't work! Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. With a closer look: Often I removed the category in this museum. Sometimes he made exact revert, ignoring that some pictures were not made in this museum. Sometimes he added the category of the museum, ignoring that (example) Category:1920s automobiles of the Musée National de l'Automobile cannot be a subcategory of Category:1920s automobiles in museums because some pictures were not made in museums. I don't know if it's okay to press the revert button to make a hidden change. It looks like an attempt at deception for me. This must be multiple misuse of revert.
  2. He didn't move categories properly. He created new ones, moved the content from the old ones to the new ones, and made quick deleting requests on the old ones. Example: old Category:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) and new Category:Panhard & Levassor 20 CV Sport Type X29 Labourdette torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30. He also simply blanked the category discussion page, see here. This carries the risk that the discussion page will be deleted together with the category. This must be misuse of blanking talk page and misuse of Commons:Rename a category. Other examples: 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, 1900s, 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s.

I request: A block for a longer period than the first time. If possible and usual on Commons: A ban for specific areas for a long time. Perhaps for the areas of creating categories, moving categories, renaming categories, emptying categories, suggesting for quick category deletions, changing main categories or subcategories, and reverts. Or generally for everything to do with vehicles or vehicle museums. Buch-t (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buch-t: I am sympathetic, but not all of the above edits look at all obviously wrong. For example, at [4]: what exactly is wrong with adding each of the following to Category:Alfa-Romeo type 8C 2,9 B biplace course (M.N.A. 1118)? Please reply under the respective bullet points for any where you think I have it wrong.
So for this edit, I see one pretty obviously correct change, one other that looks correct, one other that is not a well-named category but looks otherwise correct, and one that is, indeed COM:OVERCAT. If that is typical, this does not suggest high competence on Finoskov's part, but is not usually the sort of thing over which someone gets blocked.
It is really hard to go through a laundry list like the one you posted above and try to work out whether someone's edits or good, bad, or (as it appears from this one) somewhere in between. This took me over 5 minutes just to evaluate on edit in an area where I don't normally work and it came up "not great, not awful." I would much rather see you take 3-5 specific edits of his that you think are wrong and break them down like I did above. In other words: if this is what you want us to look at, please do the heavy lifting yourself instead of making an admin spend an hour on working out whether you are correct.
As for the category moves: yes, that is very wrong, and might merit a block all on its own, especially if he won't promise to stop. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I followed up on that last (about the category moves) at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Finoskov&diff=prev&oldid=973625389. - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will give more details of 3-5 specific edits tomorrow (European time). --Buch-t (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More details to the first 5 reverts.
I have visited the museum in Mulhouse and also the 3-month-exhibition in the museum in Kassel, Germany.
Remember: I wrote edit comments when I deleted wrong categories. He wrote nothing when he reverted me. --Buch-t (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Finoskov: all of this looks very wrong on your part, especially putting way too broad categories under particular museums that might have an exemplar.
Blocks are intended to be preventive, rather than punitive. If you promise to stop this now, and you do stop, I see no need for a block. If you persist, I would advocate either a 3-month block now, to be turned into a year-long block if you come back and do this again, or a complete topic ban from anything about automobiles. - Jmabel ! talk 18:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:C.Suthorn

[edit]

This user uploaded a bunch of random photos and categorized them into Category:2024 Magdeburg Christmas market attack with them not being directly connected to the attack and therefore misleading possible viewers. I tried to contact him on his talk page about it but haven't received any answer so far. I have tried to edit the corresponding pictures, but the user keeps reverting my changes. (ongoing deletion request with redundant pictures at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:C.Suthorn)

Examples: File:Magdeburg Impressionen 2024-12-21 143.jpg, File:Magdeburg Impressionen 2024-12-21 149.jpg, File:Magdeburg Impressionen 2024-12-21 022.jpg, File:Magdeburg Impressionen 2024-12-21 107.jpg, File:Magdeburg Impressionen 2024-12-21 017.jpg, File:Magdeburg Impressionen 2024-12-21 142.jpg. VECTRONATOR (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ich bin gerade fertig geworden einige de-kategorisierungen zurückzusetzen. Begründungen dafür in den Edit-comments. Dass ich den DR für unsinnig halte, habe ich bereits dort geschrieben. Jetzt Wochenende. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dann sollten die Fotos aber in eine Unterkategorie Category:Magdeburg after 2024 Christmas market attack. Das erste komplette entfernen war ein Fehler, du hättest statt die alte Kategorie wieder hinzuzufügen aber die passende Unterkategorie anlegen können. GPSLeo (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they should be recategorized, no this is not an administrative matter. - Jmabel ! talk 18:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel, what would be the best way if the user resets several times for some images that have nothing to do with the attack? I don't want to get caught up in an edit war, but some images can't stay in this category. Lukas Beck (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a subcat along the lines of what Leo suggested above. For anything that doesn't show actual physical damage, I'd suggest a subcat Category:Aftermath of 2024 Magdeburg Christmas market attack. - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a bit clumsy, but: If I drive to a city where something significant happened the day before and I take a photo of some statue in that city that had nothing to do with that event, except that maybe there was a police car there the day before drove by, then this image should not be sorted into any category or subcategory of that event at all. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giorgi Akhlouri

[edit]

Giorgi Akhlouri (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is a new user uploading personal images (e.g. File:Giorgi Akhlouri.png) or copyrighted ones claiming they are his own just because he uses the same user name as the copyright visible. Furthermore, he uploads the same image in different format (e.g. File:KINGDOM OF IBERIA.png and File:Kingdom of Iberia.gif. He seems to reupload deleted images too, according to this and the list of his uploads. Finally, he seems to be doing the same kind of thing throughout all Wikis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Giorgi_Akhlouri) to propagate his uploads Pierre cb (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Last warning sent, should be blocked if continues, all files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=974933041"