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
(edit | watch)
User problems
(edit | watch)
Blocks and protections
(edit | watch)
Other
(edit | watch)

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
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
Important discussion pages (index)
Gnome User Speech.svg


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.


SLV100[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved

SLV100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
This user seems to be back to disrupting closed DR cases. See this fresh example of defacing a closed DR and inserting bogus speedy tags:

Should be warned (not blocked, since this user seems to be engaging also in good work on DR mantainance) and his contributions scrutinized. -- Tuválkin 14:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ I understand the reason for this report. - SLV100 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question @SLV100: What would the reason be and how will this report affect further behavior? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The reason for this warning was because I was "disrupting closed DR cases" (Tuválkin). I will refrain from performing such edits in the future. This was a misunderstanding on my behalf. In the past, my misunderstandings have been resolved with discussion. - SLV100 (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to remember as a principle we generally don't delete old discussion, we'd rather start a new one. While started a new discussion it's a good practice to notify people that have participated to old discussions on the same topic. I believe that no administrator actions are required for now, as SLV100 seems to understand what was the problem. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Agree Can be closed per PierreSelim. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
For the record, this happen. -- Tuválkin 08:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done SLV100 did it again. This time I'll blocked the user for 1 month, since he's not constantly on Commons. Maybe this will finally get his attention. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted SLV100's pagemoves. --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: The pagemoves are part of my "good work on DR mantainance" (Tuválkin) and there was no consensus to revert. Thank you. -- SLV100 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Fry1989[edit]

This user ignores the discussions on the File Talk:Armoiries Luxembourg Bourbon avec ornements.svg and on his own talk page for weeks and restarts an edit war today. As there is no reflection or consideration of the arguments given and proposals made I understand his action as a breach of rule and conduct. Please check this matter and react to it. -  Maxxl² - talk 19:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Again with the accusation of ignoring things, you've done this several times. Earlier today you accused me of ignoring you and that my "choice of silence" was an admission that you are right and you took it as a sign to revert the image. Previously, you also changed some image and I didn't happen to notice, and you accused me on my talk page of being ungrateful, ironically calling me a "friend" when we certainly are not. Then there is the issue of this shitlist you created about me, full of false claims of "stealing" other users works. You really expect me to work with you?
Now regarding the images, there is no consensus for it to be grey, it has been white for a significant amount of time and until there is a consensus it should not be changed. I did not "restart" any edit war, YOU did, by reverting the image without consensus and using my supposedly deliberate silence on the matter as a reason to. How do you know I was choosing to ignore the matter? It hasn't been mentioned on the talk page in weeks, I very well could have missed (and in fact that's exactly what happened) your notice on my talk page, or I could have even been on a short vacation. You don't know, but you're strangely attached to this matter which you have no previous involvement in and you are accusing me (as you have in the past) of things I have not done. That is my response. Fry1989 eh? 19:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The image has been locked. When you, *SGR*, and Fry1989 are able to reach a solution that does not involve upload warring, any admin may remove the protection. In the mean time, I suggest that you all spend more time talking to each other and less time reverting each other.
*SGR* and Fry1989: What the two of you did on May 21-22 is unacceptable. Eight reverts in 48 hours is upload warring - a type of edit warring - and edit warring is specifically addressed in Commons' blocking policy. Consider this your pre-block warning.
Maxxl2: Fry1989 not responding to you is not the same as him agreeing with you. I'm not sure where you got that idea but please discard it.
All of you: Thus far the discussion on the talk page has been civil, and it looks like it's making slow progress. I urge you to keep it up. If you absolutely can't resolve this, I suggest taking up Fry1989's suggestion about uploading separate versions.
Good luck to all of you in reaching an equitable solution. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I carefully watched for two weeks the activities of Fry1989. He was editing his talk page, other pages and images every single day. That means it is very unlikely that he has not noticed my proposals and references. I followed the en:Wikipedia:Silence and consensus
My proposal to solve the edit war between the other two to have two different images where the one follows FIAV rule and the other the rule of the House of Luxembourg-Bourbon was accepted by "SGR" and had no reaction from Fry1989.
As the two images already exist, I reverted the impossible hybrid to the exact House of Luxembourg-Bourbon version which one can name the "official version". The other is the File:Armoiries Luxembourg Bourbon avec ornements 2.svg that follows the FIAV color rule which is widely accepted in european heraldry.
There is no need for a formal acceptance on behalf of Fry1989 as everyone here who is experienced with european heraldry knows that only the proposed two versions are acceptable. Only the version Fry1989 prefers is an impossible hybrid which should be reverted immediately. -  Maxxl² - talk 20:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I really am not obligated to confirm one way or the other, but I have been very busy the past week. I bought and had to set up a new PC, new internet service, I have had limited time to edit on Commons as I have taken extra shifts at work, and I was focussing on core matters that I have been editing and maintaining for years. I indeed missed your comment. However, even if I chose to ignore it, that is not a "YES" (or a "NO") to anything. Fry1989 eh? 02:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, you are right, Sven Manguard: talking to each other can help (and mostly does). That is what I dried several times ... Anyway, you are right (a second time): It was a kind of edit waring and I have to apologize for that (what I did before). But what we have now, is a fixed file that is wrong anyway (have a look at the editis in January 2011 and you will see Fry1989 said "I'm wokring on it") *SGR* (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
May I just ask a more factual question: as Fry1989 wasn't able for four years to name a source that supports or confirms his hybrid version of this CoA, is there anybody else who has found a source for this weird colour arrangement? -- Maxxl² - talk 13:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Do we have to wait endless to get an answer to the basic question? Again we sit back and wait until a user, that never has qualified to be an expert on the field of heraldry, has the grace to let us know his decision on a matter he is obviously stumped with. That is weird. -- Maxxl² - talk 15:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

...Well, looks like three days are not enough... *SGR* (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to you self-anointed experts? I have no interest in fruitless discussion with those who make it clear their consider my voice an inferior one. Fry1989 eh? 05:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Please, can anyone tell me, how to reach a solution, if one party "have no interest in fruitless discussion"? Everything, we were waiting for were "a source that supports or confirms [your] hybrid version". I would not call that fruitless. *SGR* (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

DePiep[edit]

DePiep (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Pictogram voting info.svg For the record:

I have blocked the user DePiep for 6 months after he left a well thought out (not a spontaneous blackout) insult on the discussion page of Jameslwoodward. The remark block me for a week shows clearly that the user has been fully aware of the rules. This behavior could have lead to a full block as well, only his contributions to the projects as a whole prevent that from happening. I removed the insult from the talk page as well. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this amounted to leaving a "f*** you" on Jim's talk page. This is rude and may be harassment, but it is not a pattern of harassment, nor does it misuse personal information, make defamatory allegations or similar. Were I to take time to search through administrator contributions, I have no doubt I would find this exact phrase being used by administrators in other contexts. The choice of block seems to have taking into account non-Commons contributions, which is not the norm for Commons, at least we tend to disregard blocks and edit history on other projects.
Specifying 6 months as a first block is unusual, this could have been left as an indef block until such a time as DePiep was prepared to ask for an unblock and be assessed by an administrator properly to recognize why their behaviour has been unacceptable. For this reason I propose that the block is amended to be an indef as this better fits the guideline for block duration given at Blocking policy.
If the suppressed revision is more disturbing than the block log indicates, this may justify the minimum block length, however in that case a clear explanation here of the nature of the harassment would be helpful and ensure that the minimum of 6 months is understood to be the most suitable block option. -- (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Fae, it not a maybe, it is harassment (per policy vandalism as well). As I stated above, it was a planned insult and not a heat-of-the-moment blackout. The planning part prompted me to extend the block to 6 months. A user with that many global edits should know better. If other peeps use the same phrase or not is not the issue here. Point me to those and I am happy to block as well. Admin or not, I couldn't care less. Do you think I block for fun? I mean, stating that the block has to be assessed properly? DePiep can use the unblock feature no matter what the block length is. Given the explanation above, in my humble book, the block is justified. On second thought: Changing to indef doesn't look too good for DePiep in the long run. One could think that there's even more to it - makes a bad impression. Just my 2cents, if someone wants to change to indef, I won't argue about it. Policy states: Blocks based on disruptive behavior should be lifted if there is reason to believe that the disruptive behavior will not resume. There's another way out for the user if he wants to. As you know, I can always be argued with to change a block or overstretch AGF. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I read this as confirming that the block of DePiep was for using "F*** you" on Jim's talk page in a deliberate way and that there is no objection to changing this to an indef block and/or the block being lifted before 6 months, so long as the expectations given in Blocking policy have been met.
With regard to administrators using the F-word, I recall some names, but it looks like listing them here could cause un-mellow outcomes. -- (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Hedwig, for being protective of your colleague -- I appreciate it very much. One of the things that makes this job easier is the support we give each other. With that said, I have unblocked DePiep. I think that six months is too long for an angry retort, even one that was not quite in the heat of the moment. While I don't at all like users throwing expletives around, Admins must recognize the occasional need for rhinoceros hide protective clothing. I think that the seven hours that he was blocked has probably gotten his attention. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
squeeze @: & @Jameslwoodward: No objection to changing the block. I could have made that a little clearer. If Jim thinks the block is long enough, than it is enough. It was his talk page and not mine. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
DePiep did here what he did elswhere and what is probably his usual approach to collaborative work: A mixture of snark, valuable work, assumption that everyone else is dimwitted, unwillingness to accept existing conventions, and random, obnoxious tantrums. While six months seems too long, seven hours was perhaps not enough. -- Tuválkin 12:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Commons has weaker guidelines for blocking than some other projects, tending to accept norms rather than needing this to be set in concrete. It is rare for a first block of an account to be more than a week, unless the pattern of behaviour indicates that the account is never going to be used for anything else, such as a spamming or pure vandalism account. If you go through past first blocks for abusive comments or trolling, these are rarely more than a day. Further disruptive behaviour sets a pattern and it becomes harder for any administrator to presume the contributor is likely to change their behaviour without increasingly long blocks to get their attention. As has been indicated above, it is also common for long blocks to be lifted early based on a commitment to change, so stating a block length in a block notice tends to be indicative, but remains subject to appeal. In terms of a successful outcome, the good news is that contributors with a history on other projects tend to want to use their account again, so even repeated warnings, and if needed, blocks, do not always lead to contributors disappearing forever.
Okay, back to this case, a few hours is a short block, however this is long enough for DePiep to get mellow. If they continue to do the equivalent of telling admins to F-off, I have little doubt that the next block will be a lot longer so that they have time to discuss their behaviour and recognize that creating a hostile environment for the rest of us is itself a problem, regardless of the rights and wrongs of what might have annoyed them in the first place. -- (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Imho, short blocks are to trigger a change of behaviour, (short corrective block or cool down periods) long blocks are meant to protect the project against those who harm it. Just my two cents aboutblock lenghts in general. Natuur12 (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
While Jim has a valid point that administrators should have "thick skin", I disagree with reducing the block to seven hours. In order for an online community such as Wikimedia to thrive there must be a hostile free work environment. User's who call each other names, engage in "down and dirty" conduct, and throw fits when things don't go the way they wanted end up creating wasted hours of work for the community (as is evident here), and often times run off those who act with general decorum. To my knowledge, nothing has ever been solved/improved by telling someone to fuck off. If this were a place of employment, let alone a collaborative (real world) volunteer organization, such a person would be terminated. While I am not suggesting an indef block, as it is not really supported by policy, seven hours seems inappropriate. Tiptoety talk 15:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
When I meantioned his behaviour elsewhere I mean not in another project, but elsewhere here in Commons. -- Tuválkin 01:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Two comments. First, User:DePiep has apologized on my talk page, which suggests to me that it was a fit of temper that I can certainly understand.
Second, why is it that several of you think that "fuck you" deserves a block, while Symbol wtf vote.svg WTF? has been through at least two DRs with significant support? My reaction to the two is similar -- in fact, I am probably more offended by Symbol wtf vote.svg WTF? applied to one of my actions than I am by the simple "fuck you". I suspect that this is very regional -- such things usually are. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jim: For me, Symbol wtf vote.svg WTF? is a swearword, while "fuck you" is an insult. This may explains that. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Since this is opened "for the record".
I absolutely disagree with User:Hedwig in Washington's 'analysis' that my post was not by temper, but by calculation (as they repeatedly posted here). Bolding it does not make it more true.
I also abhor and reject the smearing introduction by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DePiep Tuvalkin [1], who only tries to suggest by association to other admins (note the es in the link). For this, this smearing editor did not ever produce a single reasoning-with-diff-proves-and-quotes in any such hot topic page (think enwiki WP:ANI). -DePiep (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC) (just stroke a bad link -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC))
You are actually contradicting yourself be stating that the insult was made in the heat of the moment and not by calculation: Why would you call another user a smearing editor? That clearly shows your mindset and your inability to accept that other users could be correct once in a while. Insulting editors doesn't make your actions right. I'd like to stay out of this fruitless discussion pretty please. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Can't follow your reasoning, you're mixing up two statements. I repeat that Tuválkin did not and does not produce one single diff or quote when smearing me. -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC) (Bad link, I had to stroke. ping @Tuvalkin: -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC))
I refrained from substantiate my view of DePiep’s role and value in the project because I didn’t want to “smear” s/his name more than strictly necessary, by bringing about old news. But, upon insistance, lo and behold how DePiep (while contributing a few good questions and some good work) managed to play the victim and drain off the patience of all active contributors of the BSicon project: Talk:BSicon/Renaming#Category:BSicon.2FNew_icons… (Actually in this regard he’s second only to Axpde, who is actually an admin: When an admin who works exclusively for a given subproject manages to foster unanimous dislike from people in that subproject, you know you have a problem — one worse than the matter at hand.) -- Tuválkin 11:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question Are we done here? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Blocking on a basis of harassment can be done only if it repeated behavior as blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one. Block have to be last resort for behaviour. In this case dropping a warning in the talk page was necessary. Also the block duration was unreasonable. First we block for short time and then gradually increase it if the behavior repeated. Geagea (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Urban explorer's photos[edit]

Hello,

I report a problem with these 3 files below. These photos have been shot in an old abandoned building which the access is forbidden for security reasons. I contacted the contributor and explain him that it was irresponsible to publish it in WP but he doesn't seem to understand it's a violation of property and this can lead to accidents and engages others to do so. It is a dangerous place and these pictures should be deleted by precaution.

These 2 photos below has been shot in a unsecured abandoned explosives underground store that is now a private property and have not been secured. It violated law on a private property and can lead to accidents for the same reasons. The contributor explained me he was an urban explorer and he had the right to do so, without any authorization from the owners.

I feel concerned because these places are potentially hazardous and forbidden to public. As the creator of these articles (Puits des Combes, Puits du Marais) I wish not to give these informations that can threat people's security.

Thank you --KidA42 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I answered in French to his talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
How does the OP here know that visiting these sites is in violation of the law? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
KidA42 -- I'm not sure that's any kind of commonly-recognized reason for image deletion. It certainly doesn't affect the copyright status directly. AnonMoos (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI, KidA42 does not ask for deletion. S/He asks that the images should be removed from the article in the French WP. I explain that this should be discussed on WP, not here. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Problemas[edit]

Olá, por favor me ajudem, têm um sujeito que está usando ilegalmente o meu nome em uma conta suspeita!!! Eu não sou sockpupter! Ele é que deve ser!!!! Por favor, excluam essa conta ou bloqueiem ele do Commons!!! Por favor!!! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Gustavo_neto1 --Gustavo neto (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Agradecido (Please, translate Portuguese to English)! --Gustavo neto (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As per Google Translate: "Hello, please help me have a guy who is illegally using my name in a suspicion account! I'm not sockpupter! It should be!! Please delete this account or block the Commons it! Please!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. --A.Savin 09:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Latest sockpuppet of serial copyright problem user Category:Sockpuppets of Over the Limit[edit]

Hi there. The latest sockpuppet in this long line of accounts is User:Fallout perfection. I've blocked the account on enwiki on the basis of identical behaviour. The latest image File:Cesaro vs orton.jpg is a copyvio from somewhere on wwe.com - tineye reports a few hits. Can someone do the honors ? - Peripitus (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File gone + blocked. --Denniss (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response - Peripitus (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Artículo bueno.svg Confirming this. --Martin H. (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Jhalvico, Latironicoec, Pablo685002[edit]

Hi,

I suspect Jhalvico (talk · contribs) to have several sockpuppets used to upload copyvios and remove warnings. May be a checkuser is needed.

Regards, Yann (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Latironicoec is Likely; Pablo685002 is Time2wait.svg Stale. I've blocked Latironicoec. As you're familiar with the situation, you can address Jhalvico based on behaviour. (Please also try to use COM:RFCU for these in the future.) Эlcobbola talk 14:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I was not sure if there is enough evidence to request a formal CU. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)