Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

  Welcome to Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help
  Village Pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' Noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 
Administrator's assistance

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 report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
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 here.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
Translate this page
Commons discussion pages (index)


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.
  • It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.


User Takabeg[edit]

User Takabeg has presistently kept the caption taken from a book published in 1995 as "original caption" for this photo which was taken by unknown photographer in 1937 for the Imperial Japanese Navy. I asked if the "original caption" in the file's summary is the actual original caption on the photo but he did not answer.[1] I used the description from the current version of the photo but he kept reverting my edits,[2][3] and I was also subject to personal attacks from him on the File discussion page. STSC (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Original caption here: [4] If this is Chinese or Japanese I can't say. Looks Greek to me. Face-smile.svg. @Whym, Shizhao: Could you please help out and compare the translations / caption so we can finally put this issue to rest? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
This may not be the actual original caption on the original photo unless it's from the official Japanese source. Takabeg did give me a source from the National Diet Library which is more likely to have the original caption.[5] STSC (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
User:STSC persists in removing sourced existing caption and replace unsourced his/her own forged caption. Unfortunately his/her actions are recognized as vandalism. Takabeg (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to resolve this in a civil manner. The Nation Diet Library appears to have the actual original caption on the photo therefore it's caption should replace the wrong "original caption" in the file's summary. STSC (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof that the Diet Library is having the original source. What makes you think that this is the original? Because of all the watermarks? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Before getting into the actual discussion, I would like to note how a quotation might have to depend on a fair use rationale, which may be restricted by our policy on Commons file pages at the moment, if the source is not PD and the caption is copyrightable. whym (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
TL;DR - I would suggest either 1) trying to come up with a minimal and descriptive caption of what is depicted, or otherwise (=if we fail to agree with one) 2) including all captions we can find in published sources.
Below are the relevant facts I could see now. It appears that there are at least three captions to the photo found in sources.
  1. 支那事変記念海軍写真帖刊行会 (China Incident Memorial Naval Photograph Publishing Society, I'll use "Society" hereafter)'s caption (1944): "防毒マスクを付けて活躍する陸戦隊員" or "Landing Force troops wearing gas masks in action" - it doesn't say whether the masks are against their own weapon or the enemy's weapon. It is also apparent from other portions of text in the page that the author believes the photograph depicts a scene of attacking into Shanghai.
  2. Masao Hiratsuka's caption in ISBN 4881352652 (1995). p.38 - it essentially says the masks are against the Chinese army's weapon. (I don't include a quotation for the copyright concern mentioned above.)
  3. Brent Jones's caption (2012?) - it indirectly suggests the masks are against Japanese soldiers' own weapon. He illustrates the picture with a piece of information that "Chemical weapons were utilized against the Chinese during the battle."
As for the Society's and Hiratsuka's, there is also a secondary source that argues these captions: 歴史教育はこれでよいのか, p. 71 (高橋史朗 Shiro Takahashi, 1997) ISBN 9784492221532. [6][7] The book seems to argue that different sources have added somewhat different interpretation of the photograph. (Note: these snippets have minor OCR errors, but they are correctable by using the context. However, I haven't checked this book in its entirety, which I would need to go to a remote library to access. I'll welcome corrections if my read is not adequate in the larger context in the book.)
From what I find above, it appears to me that the Society's caption is minimal and contains no controversial points, and is found in the oldest source known to us. Hiratsuka's was in a published source, but seems controversial according to Takahashi. Jones' doesn't look like one found in a published source (e.g., a published book from a respected publisher) and he only suggests indirectly what appears to be his belief. Can we have something based on the Society's caption, for example, "Japanese Naval Landing Force wearing gas masks in Shanghai" in the description? If not, I would suggest giving up finding only one caption, and including all captions we find in published sources in the spirit of m:Neutral point of view. When doing so, we also should make it explicit where each caption comes from. Note that I'm not suggesting the Society's version is "original." If there is (and it appears there actually is) a controversy on what is the "correct" interpretation of the photograph or on which is "original", that is fine, but please don't bring it here to Commons. whym (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
My rationale is because the photo was taken for Imperial Japanese Navy, so the collection from the Japanese National Diet Library would be likely to have the original caption. STSC (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't STSC's point above as a basis for justification. National Diet Library here acts more as an archiver than a collector with a specific theme; its Kindai Digital Library (近代デジタルライブラリ) collection aims at providing any modern copyright-free materials published in Japan. [8] Moreover, the library also stocks Hiratsuka's book. [9] (it's copyrighted thus cannot be included in the Kindai collection yet.) whym (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I would point out the file's summary does not have to have the original caption entry. I agree we just use a neutral description like "Japanese Naval Landing Force wearing gas masks in Battle of Shanghai" without adding any possible original caption. STSC (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. @Takabeg: OK? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Although some users want to use this image as Japanese gas attack with captions such as "Japanese soldiers during (Japanese) gas attack", it's very clear that this image doesn't depict a Japanese gas attack. Because this photograph was taken in the Chapei front, which includes some parts of Chapei (Zhabei) and Hongkew (Hongkou). There is neither reports nor claims on gas attacks by the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force. There is neither reports nor claims on gas attacks by the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force, there is neither reports nor claims about gas attacks in Chapei front. So we have to prevent such users from making bad use of this image. This image was misused in the article en:Chemical warfare, wrong information was added with wrong source (This website doesn't say that this picture depict Japanese gas attack) by User:STSC.) We must prevent bad attempt like this. I believe that we have to discuss this issue not here but at the talk page. And I think we have to ask opinions of other users, at least users (for example User:Phoenix7777, User:Benlisquare) who had been interested in this image. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Just to keep the discussion in one place (and although this doesn't appear a "user problem" too much to me), I'd advise to continue here as long as it's not taking too long (and I hope so), and I hope my suggestion above is acceptable to everyone who has participated so far. I believe once the consensus is reached, it can be noted at the talk page and would prevent edit wars. If the discussion continues too long, I agree with suspending here and continuing at the talk page. whym (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Apparently these Japanese soldiers in the photo are in an attacking formation. The machine gun provides covering fire, and the Japanese riflemen are ready to dash forward along the passage. As a contrast, the photo below [10] illustrates a typical Japanese defending position, in which the Japanese soldiers blocked the street with a much more scattered formation than the disputed picture.
Chinese resources have recorded at least 23 Japanese gas attacks during the battle (中国抗日战争史学会.《侵华日军的毒气战》. 111页 ) May I ask Takabeg to list any gas attack by the Chinese army?--MtBell (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
We have already known that China and Chinese claimed and claims Japanese gas attack in Shanghai. But we need identifying reliable sources. Did you read Peter Harmsen's Shanghai 1937: Stalingrad on the Yangtze ? He writes Whether the Japanese actually did use gas in Shanghai area was a matter of debete, and remains in the years after the battle. (pp. 178-179) In short, he says that Chinese side claimed/reported Japanese gas attack, Japanese side claimed/reported Chinese gas attack. In any case, we cannot find any claims/reports on gas attack by the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force (上陸) at the Chapei front. All of places that Chinese claims on Japanese gas attacks during the Battle of Shanghai are far from Chapei front. Takabeg (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
@Takabeg, MtBell: Let me remind. I would like to see if there is consensus on this: do you agree with having Japanese Navy Landing Force wearing gas masks in the Battle of Shanghai and nothing more in the description? We as file curators at Commons are talking about what to write as the description of a photograph hosted by Commons, a free media repository. If you have other things to ask or respond (about the subject, background, implications, etc), please do it elsewhere. whym (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
@Whym: I agree with your proposal which will quench the dispute in commons. Could you also save this thread to the file talk page? Some facts mentioned here may be useful in future discussions continued in some wikipedia projects. --MtBell (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Whym your proposal sounds reasonable as a way to calming down users. But I cannot agree with your proposal. Because I oppose to not only propaganda but also censorship. I believe every caption can be written as long as sources focus on especially picture itself. Takabeg (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • @Takabeg: Please consider accepting the "way to calming down users". I wouldn't rule out the possibility of discussing at the talk page after having the short one as a tentative description. whym (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Takabeg's vandalism in Category:Nanjing Massacre[edit]

Takabeg has uncategorized dozens of photos from Category:Nanjing Massacre. Unsurprisingly, they are all about Japanese atrocities. Could any one stop him? Following is part of his work:

--MtBell (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you felt so. Why do you think vandalism my adjusting of categories ? For example, as you know, File:Japanese looting near a gate, Nanking massacre.JPG was not taken as photograph of the Nanking Massacre. I have Murase's photo album, so I know that captions and names of sources that you had made are wrong. And only a part of photographs of Murase are related with Nanking massacre. But all of Murase's work depict Nanking massacre for you. For example my edit is correct, yours is incorrect. my edit is correct, yours is incorrect. I think your action such as removing sources and captions are very harmful. I prefer reality to forgery. But I feel you prefer propaganda to reality. About this edit, Category:Photos in The Shame Album is subcategory of Nanking massacre. So needless. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to judge your behavior but to point out a simple fact: moving these photos to some meaningless categories such as "human corpse" or "decapitation in China" contribute no value to further utilization of these photos. No one can find and use them.
Please justify your edits one by one. For the first photo (File:Japanese looting near a gate, Nanking massacre.JPG), looting was part of the Japanese atrocities during Nanjing Massacre, according to the post war trials. Why did you exclude it from Nanjing Massacre?--MtBell (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe categories need to reflect undisputed information as they cannot be hedged. How about using a gallery page instead of a category? At a gallery page you can add a variety of nuances ("Both ABC and XYZ attribute this to ...", or "ABC interpret this as ... but XYZ made a counter argument saying this as ...", ...). Another idea might be to add it to Category:Disputed Nanking Massacre photographs. Either way, please respect COM:NOT and keep these minimal, just enough to briefly inform file users. whym (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Whym: A denialist will dispute on every photo you can find about Nanjing Massacre. (Actually they have published several books to do so, arguing ALL the photos were fabricated.) --MtBell (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Takabeg cited those denialists to argue that all relevant Commons images be removed from the category. Shouldn't it be discussed on individual talk pages, not all changes by one user unilaterally? whym (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Takabeg has been persistently removing photos relating to Nanjing Massacre from the category or even nominating them for deletion. He is doing this deliberately and systematically. See how he uncategorized this well explained photo without giving a reason. It's not the problem of any individual photo. It's HIS problem which we need to solve in the noticeboard. Thank you. --MtBell (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a similar pattern of behaviour as previously shown by Takabeg when they disagree with anything. They remove categories/information repeatedly and nominate images for deletion until they ger their way, even if it means manipulating other users to do so on their behalf. Fry1989 eh? 22:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, another suggestion for compromise: how about clarifying the definition of Category:Nanjing Massacre to include something like "This category include files that have been used to illustrate Nanjing Massacre". Would Takabeg agree to get these files back under this definition? Can we agree on that the category may include photographs that have been said to depict the Massacre by some authors, although disputed by some others? (we could include this kind of extended wording into the category description, if that is preferable.) Takabeg might have understood it as a category of photographs that has perfect consensus as those depicting the Massacre, but such strictness is not realistic for historical photographs like these, which are always bound to interpretations that may differ between historians. I hope that this clarification is uncontroversial, because it's pretty much what we (explicitly or implicitly) do for any other categories and files (especially historical ones). I hope that Takabeg is ok with adding these files into Category:Nanjing_Massacre under the clarified definition for now. whym (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Amazoniaexotics[edit]

This username is that of a business in the United Kingdom. Their sole purpose seems to be to advertise this business. In the Commons, they do this by uploading files whose name includes "by Paul Taylor of Mazonian Exotics U.K." as the last part of each filename. They then come over to en.wikipedia and put their pictures, however blurry, into articles on the Amazonian exotics which they retail, with the nice helpful advertising name. This seems to me to be pretty shamelessly obvious advertising, and I ask that the article names be shortened to remove their utility as free adverts for this COI editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Handy link: Amazoniaexotics (talk · contribs). -- Tuválkin 08:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • ? I don't see any of what you describe. The user has uploaded six images, all of which have file names such as File:Sida cordifolia flower.JPG which are straightforward and descriptive. There are no deleted images. One of the images has "courtesy of Paul Taylor, Amazonia Exotics" in the description. The others do not. Since we require the author to be identified, this does not seem to be spam.
It is possible that you saw the behavior you describe on WP:EN. The user has been blocked there. I am not an Admin there, so I cannot see the user's deleted files, if any.
There are two problems here, which you did not mention. The username "Amazoniaexotics" falls into our prohibition of organizational usernames. I have blocked the name and invited the user to open a new account. Finally, one of the files includes a recent UK penny to show size. Unfortunately, UK coins are copyrighted, so I have tagged the file with {{delete}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward, please check the files’ renaming history — you’ll see that Orangemike is not lying when he says that this user has been «including "by Paul Taylor of Mazonian Exotics U.K." as the last part of each filename». -- Tuválkin 12:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I did not accuse Orangemike of lying. I have very rarely, if ever, used that word on Commons, as I have no way of knowing whether an error was a simple mistake or intentional. Accusing someone of lying is serious -- if we believe that a user is actually lying to us, we might as well block him indefinitely, as we can no longer trust anything he does. In point of fact, I did not accuse Orangemike of anything, not even of being mistaken. I merely said that I did not see any of what he described, which as, it happens, is entirely true and correct.
You are, however, correct -- three of the six images originally had the file names as described. I happened to look at the first two in detail and not the other four. They have now been renamed. You have also removed the UK penny, so that problem is gone. Therefore, I see no reason for complaint here.
It is now moot, but I am not at all sure that the original file names were a problem. We allow professional photographers to include their names in file names, so I think that it is probably all right to allow others to include their professional affiliations as well. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Karlfk[edit]

This new user runs a script tagging by a gadget files with {{Convert to SVG|sport map}} with no individual check of meaningfulness. Would any admin like to have a look. -- Maxxl² - talk 08:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I asked the user to stop editing like a bot and failing a RFB. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't use a bot. If there was an erronous edit please tell me or correct it. Karlfk (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello friends, so I'm the maintainer of the "gadget" (I think the description "script" would be sufficient). So let us be more objectively. This work is not a bot work (every edit is individual checked). But any suggestion to this work could be useful, so please describe more meaningful what is/could be wrong⁈ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 12:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I mean there is a fundamental problem with sorting of the {{SVG}} tag. So I suggest to made this problem more public. The risk is very high that this will be lead to a meaningless over-categorization. As User:Sarang had also proposed to made this sort system (more like in the German WP) more useful.Template talk:Convert to SVG#Arguments for a 2nd parameter So this is not an user-problem. So it is much better to wear the problem somewhere else on⁈ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 12:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not just "over categorisation", it's also inappropriate categorisation. Someone seems to have not thought through who uses these 'need vectorisation' categories. Recently there was a 'family tree' chart of some branch of homo sapiens or some-such. This ended up as being categorised as {{svg biology}}. Whilst technically it is biology relevant, but as far as vectorisation goes it is more accurate to put it into the diagrams category as that is the sort of graphist required to convert it. Some graphist won't go near, say, anatomical or coat of arms stuff, and just concentrate on diagrams etc. Then there are some graphists who won't stray from biological topics. Obviously there are lots of in-between graphists too, but where do you think you'll find the likely sort of editor who is going to take the 'job'? So when doing these categorisations please bear in mind who's more likely to take the job rather than being totally pedantic about its categorisation. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've known the problem now concerning the "sport map" category. I changed the parameters of the script, but they were not actualized immediately. So when I opened the category page I've seen the buttons for the previous parameters. Meanwhile the script actualized the parameters but the page looked the same, so I didn't get what I saw and some files were mistakenly categorized to "Sport map images that should use vector graphics‎". Karlfk (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

101.222.233.254 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Two random CfD — one misformed and empty, the other senseless — see contributions. -- Tuválkin 14:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Taxiarchos228 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Reverted my edit. Even I told him to discuss with me to solve the confict but he denied ( [11]). He discarded my vote when I have legal right. He DID break the voting rules also. It is really rude when we revert s.b edits without discussion. [12][13]. Alphama (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Verax666[edit]

Remove warnings from own talk page and edit my user page and blanked my user talk page--Motopark (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 week block w/ warning of an indef block if the behavior continues. INeverCry 03:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
{{oppose}} Sorry but this is the first time I ever heard from such policy!? As we can see on the talk page, this procedure is strong controversial. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 09:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok sorry I see now the accusation was ambiguous, because "remove warning from own talk page" is not a policy aviolation. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 09:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Олег73рус[edit]

Олег73рус has already been blocked once for persistent uploads of copyvios. However, looking at his uploads, I can see that the majority of them are still blatant copyvios. This Bedford Chevanne was what caught my eye, as I happened to be reading a Bedford brochure from 1981 which has this very image in it (I could post a picture if needed). Here are a few more, just from the first fifty uploads. Judging by the variety of cameras and programs involved in creating the photos (I can't find any camera used twice) the uploader actually hasn't created any of his supposed works. User has never responded to anything in the past, I suggest a permanent block unless they have something relevant to say. Also, I don't see any reason to keep a single image that Олег73рус has uploaded - they all stink of copyvio.

mr.choppers (talk)-en- 15:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've started a mass RfD. --A.Savin 19:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 20:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Mti[edit]

Hi, since about a week Mti (talk · contribs) is creating lots of incomplete deletion requests. I'm busy to clean up his mess since sunday last week. Especialy he is missing to list his requests to the daily deletion page. On sunday I foun about 90 of them an listed them iniviualy to Commons:Deletion requests/2014/09/14. On Monday I found about 580 of them an decided to merge them together into one mass request - see Commons:Deletion requests/Japanese Symbols and Flags uploaded by User:Mti. Since then he continues to raise imcomplete deletion requests till today - sometimes only a few a day sometimes multilple hundrets of them. I allready tried to talk to him on his talkpage an on the mass DR page, but it looks like he don't speaks english, he is allways answering in japaneese, but not realy responing to my questions or my requests. Could an expierenced japaneese speaking user try to explain him how to properly raising deletion requests, especialy to link them to the daily log page. And could this user also ask him to stop raising those requests at all, until the mass request has been decided as kept or deleted. I am realy only busy since about a week to clean up his mess and any help would be appreciated. regards. --JuTa 15:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

File Deleted[edit]

File:Westland_Mk_41_Sea_King_Bundeswehr_89+55_Flyout_Kiel_Lackierung.jpg

Reason: Some Foo about Danish Currency Copyrightreasons. But this Image is about a german navy helicopter. Some Admin/Bot deletes too much. Do I have reload this image?? Dirk1981 (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Restored. No idea why this was deleted citing currency as reason. --Denniss (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Restored, that’s good — but it would be good to be able to track this kind of deletions and undeletions in the file history. -- Tuválkin 20:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
You find that in the Logbook linked on top of the file history page. --JuTa 21:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)