Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcut: COM:AN/U· COM:ANU

  Welcome   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 instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email

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

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, 51, 52, 53
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
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, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55
Translate this page
Commons discussion pages (index)


  • 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.
  • 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.

Ryulong's blind reverts[edit]

I don't think admin actions is needed for now, but I ask you to keep an eye on this. Ryulong (talk · contribs) mass-removed texts I added [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Although this is the first time I'm harassed by Ryulong at Commons, I'm sick and tired of his mass-removal of my texts at English Wikipedia[9]. And the comment "removing Nanshu's nonsense" is alarming. Apparently he is trying to drag me into revert wars. --Nanshu (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

If Ryulong doesn't stop edit warring, he'll be blocked here just as his is on English Wikipedia. He knows, as he has been repeatedly told, even when he's correct, he isn't to edit war. If he continues, please re-report the issue. Nick (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Nanshu, I am sick and tired of you enforcing your own assbackward actions on all this shit. Nanshu has disruptively labeled historical flags as "hoaxes" or "inaccurate" for reasons unknown. He brings up actions I've made elsewhere for reasons unknown. He has been previously censured on Wikipedia for doing this to me: claiming I'm a danger and harassing him when he is simply being disruptive and thinking he's an expert and I'm not. Nanshu has called every single instance of a flag of the former Ryukyu Kingdom a "Wikipedia hoax" but provides sources that say that the flag exists in some form. He is forum shopping on Wikipedia and here to get his way which is sad really.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
To make it clear to everyone, File:Ryukyu Islands flag 1875-1879.svg, File:Flag of Ryukyu.svg, File:Ryukyu Islands flag 1875-1879 cswb.svg, File:Ryukyu Islands flag 1875-1879 cs.svg, File:Ryukyu Islands flag until 1875 bordered.png, File:Ryukyu Islands flag until 1875 bordered.svg, File:Ryukyu Islands flag until 1875 bordered 2.png, and File:Flag of the Ryukyu Kingdom.svg should not be falsely labeled "Wikipedia Hoaxes" on the Wikimedia Commons without any proof other than the massive amounts of text Nanshu has dumped onto the file information pages based on whatever research he has claimed to do that shows that the images created here are not fabrications of Commons or Wikipedia users as has been proven by another user on the English Wikipedia who contacted me over this, so Nanshu has no right to label all of these files as "factually inaccurate" as he's done so I removed his massive text dumps as such. And based on what? One random Japanese Wikipedian's edit 5 years ago? Nanshu is being disruptive as he was towards me on the English Wikipedia and as he is currently being on the English Wikipedia towards Sturmgewehr88.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
And one final note: Nanshu will do this constantly. He will edit the English Wikipedia sporadically and make vast changes that cause a lot of disruption and then expect to not be challenged on these matters at all. And the minute he does get challenged he decries the person who challenged his so-called expertise on the matter in question as intentionally disruptive and harassing rather than address the actual reason he was challenged. So let him take the time here to make a fourth thread to go "These flags are inaccurate and here's why" before he restores his massive piles of text and placing each and every flag that is labeled a flag of the historic Ryukyu Kingdom or Ryukyu Domain into Category:Hoaxes where they do not belong.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry for this final message, but this is the extent Nanshu is going through to say that flags that have existed in some form since the 19th century and as late as 1946 are somehow "hoaxes" perpetrated by one Wikipedian. w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#RfC: Flag of Ryukyu, w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive reverts by Sturmgewehr88, w:Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A "national flag" without secondary sources, and w:Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#Suggestion for a case study.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Would Nanshu please respond and explain his edits, providing third party evidence independent of Wikipedia, which confirms his claims of these being a hoax to be verifiable. I'd also appreciate if Ryulong or any other interested party with third party evidence conflicting with Nahshu also posts it here. In the interim, no matter who is wrong and who is right, there will be no further changes to these files until the issue is considered settled, being right doesn't give you a free pass to edit war and be disruptive. Nick (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I find it funny that Ryulong reverted Nanshu twice and Nanshu doesn't think "admin actions needed for now", and yet I reverted Nanshu just once and he brought me to ANI as a "real threat to Wikipedia". Nanshu provided the only sources to be found so far but dismisses all of them as unreliable (quite convenient for pushing his POV, but that's "just a speculation"). His whole case relies on the flags being a "Wikipedia hoax" (invented on-wiki to intentionally trick others), which they are not. His "unreliable" sources prove that they existed before the invention of the internet, let alone Wikipedia, and they claimed to be the national flags. His vandalism (yes, at this point it's vandalism) was deserving of a revert. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
See the reply to Abd below. --Nanshu (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • When I see a report on a noticeboard, I look for prior attempts to resolve a dispute. I see none, here, no edits to User talk:Nanshu by Ryulong, and the only edit to User talk:Ryulong by Nanshu is a notice of this filing, which Rylong reverted without comment. That's not a good sign, it often indicates prior conflict on another wiki, which is obvious from their comments above.
  • Commons is not an encyclopedia. We do not label images as hoaxes unless there is consensus on it. So as to content, Ryulong was correct, though uncivil and revert warring. This edit by Nanshu was misleading, the link was to a general article on Wikipedia hoaxes, not to any evidence, and even if there is evidence, we won't assert the conclusion from evidence as fact, in the presence of controversy.
  • Rylong, your slip here was in getting caught up in outrage, becoming uncivil (with "nonsense" [10] and demand in all caps for sources [11] and the same on File:Flag of the Ryukyu Kingdom.svg)
  • Using "nonsense" in a revert is uncivil, obviously. Even if it's nonsense in some way. That first revert would properly have stuck to fact and policy. Then, if you were reverted, I'd expect you, as a highly experienced Wikipedian, to avoid revert warring, and negotiate on Talk pages. Given the circumstances I'm seeing, so far, that would have failed (but we never know for sure until we try). So then you'd have gotten help, you'd have called attention to the situation so it would not be Ryulong v. Nanshu.
  • Whatever you have done on is irrelevant here, but I will point to one thing. Your last unblock reason, shortly before the ArbCom indef ban (over which I offer my condolences), was (User will report stuff rather than edit war). How about committing to that here? Had you done so, you'd be smelling like a rose, and very possibly Nanshu would be blocked, if that user had continued to insist. Still, all's well that ends well. Lesson learned?
  • Nanshu, your editing here was disruptive. Your agenda was Wikipedia-related, see [12] where you acknowledge posting your original research here because of what you call "Commons' looser policies." That Village pump discussion referred to an RfC on, [13]. Users here do not need to read those to understand this: do not bring Wikipedia conflict here. We host images, and file descriptions are for the convenience of users, they are not encyclopedia articles. If there is disagreement over the image description, we negotiate consensus. If necessary, we back up to simply reporting sources, clear and uncontroversial fact, and, Nanshu, your original research and opinions are not sources. Want to do original research? It's allowed on en.wikiversity. You'd be welcome there, if you will avoid incivility and will tolerate the opinions -- and research, right or wrong -- of others. I will warn you on your user talk page, so that there is a record for the future. Do not repeat this behavior; you are welcome on Commons. Don't wear it out. If you need help, ask for it, but a noticeboard is not the place to start. Get advice, and listen to it. --Abd (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    Nanshu's disruption was based on Wikipedia where I cannot edit and there has been extensive discussion to show he is in the wrong. He simply refuses to acknowledge this and lashes out at those who challenge his intents.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Abd, thank you for your comment. First of all, if you followed what is happening in English Wikipedia, you can see that there is no disagreement over the image description except for one point I will explain below. What I did is to collect sources, both primary and secondary, and to arrange them in an appropriate way (arranging multiple sources entails originality to some degree but it is inevitable and indeed ubiquitous in Wikipedia). To be clear, what I referred to as borderline cases is a simple inference from primary sources:
    What is interesting is that the Bankoku hakki zufu (1854) uses a rare, unofficial spelling for Ryūkyū "琉" (the official spelling is "琉"). This spelling can be found in the two other sources, suggesting that they all derived from the same source. Although this kind of sloppiness was rather common in Edo-period literature, it is reasonable to believe that the authors of these catalogs were unable to have access to firsthand knowledge on Ryūkyū.
  • A secondary source by a museum curator also made mention of the incorrect name for Ryūkyū in one of the three sources but made no further inference. This fragment is not disputed by others. Don't you think this is within the acceptable range?
  • What Sturmgewehr88 disputes is not the content I posted (again, except for one point) but the interpretation of the content (i.e., original research). And he does it in English Wikipedia, not here. So, basically, we do not bring the Wikipedia conflict here. There was only a minor dispute, until Ryulong came here to repeat mass-removal. It is clear from Ryulong's comments above that he is still trying to turn things into a personal dispute. If Ryulong amends his behavior or is kept out of the decision-making process, I think it's pretty easy to reach consensus, at least on Commons.
  • The only point Sturmgewehr88 disputes at Commons is my wording "hoax." I looked for pages about spread of misinformation from Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace, and all I could find was en:Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia and en:Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents. This is the only reason I chose the word. Through discussion, I realized that it had a much more negative connotation than I expected (you see, I'm a non-native English speaker). To be clear, I don't claim the original poster(s) of the image description did it with malice. I don't want to pinpoint who is primarily responsible (technically difficult even if you want to do). I'm not interested in such a witch-hunt. I'm looking for a word or phrase that better describes the situation: wrong captions were attached to the images, regardless of whether they were intentional or not, and they brought disastrous effects across Wikipedias. I appreciate your suggestions. --Nanshu (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Close requested. Seeing where this was going, I closed it; however, Ryulong ignored the close and commented again (below). Yann reversed the close with [14], which I will discuss with Yann. I see nothing good coming from this continued discussion. My close comment was as below. --Abd (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
[closed template] No action required, users warned, eyes on situation, discussions belong elsewhere. --Abd (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I second the request to close this thread. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable for users to expect threads on the admin noticeboards will closed by admins (even if we are not always timely about it). --99of9 (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
So, 99of9, close it. However, what is reasonable is to expect that the community will handle a situation, not specifically that an admin act. The community restricts use of certain tools to administrators, for obvious reasons. However, there are never enough admins to handle what needs to be done, if the community does not assist. I issued warnings as a result of this request. If those warnings are accepted, great. If not, if there is further disruption, an admin may confirm or retract the warnings, could warn me if I've done harm, and, with all this, if proper warnings have been ignored, the user may be blocked.
On a functional wiki, all this becomes reliable and predictable. --Abd (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No, Abd, here's the thing. Nanshu here is placing all of the blame on me when he has multiple people disagreeing with his assertion that these various flags are wrong or such and in fact demands I be left out of whatever decision making process there is to deal with them here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Abd has given Nanshu a stern speaking to. What more do you want? Experience tells me that asking a person to change their mind is asking a lot, and being wrong isn't a crime. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The issue is Nanshu's behavior is problematic across projects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You stated the alleged problem more than enough times already. Changing the beliefs of users isn't something we do here. Abd has spoken to Nanshu, and Nanshu hasn't reverted anyone for the last few days. I ask again: What more do you want? And this time, answer that question with a proposed solution, not a problem. I want to know what will please you. I want to know what will allow you to walk away from this discussion happy so that this discussion can finally be closed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks and dubious contributions by User:Popolon[edit]

I'm presenting again my previous admin request concerning Popolon, as it was archived by a bot without an admin examining the request. Here below a copy of my original request:

User:Popolon has falsely accused me at least four times of vandalism: 1 2 3 4.

Several of his editions are original research with the aim of presenting images for what they aren't, e.g.:

Can an admin warn User:Popolon for his repeated personal attacks and advise him to properly source his assertions and to stop edit warring? Thanks,--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • There was no response from an admin because none was necessary. Response there was complete, and I had warned Popolon about incivility and revert warring, and had also warned 6-A04. Edit warring had stopped.
  • Popolon's response was very positive.[15] 6-A04 made a typical response from a disruptive user.[16]
  • 6-A04 pointed to his original request here, and to the bot removal (which covered many discussions), and not to the archive, which was the complete discussion, so here it is: [17].
Hence I suggest this administrative response:
  • Confirm warning of 6-A04 over tendentious editing, and once again bringing a matter to AN/U without necessity, this time with even less excuse. Consider a short block. --Abd (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Admins: While user Abd is entitled to voice his opinion and suggestions, I filed my request on the "Admin noticeboard" and hope that an Admin will deal with the request. The link I provided to the bot removal does show the complete discussion. I am not convinced that Popolon will stop his personal attacks without Admin intervention: without any new interaction between us, he called me no longer than two days ago the most "destructive user" he has ever met... I don't consider this as a particularly encouraging sign towards attitude change, especially after reiterated false accusations of vandalism and unsubstantiated doubts on the authenticity of my uploads. I'm not asking Popoplon to be blocked, but formally warned by an Admin. Thanks,--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The bot removal was largely unreadable. 6-A04's behavior continues to be disruptive. If that post that 6-A04 links is important, the full conversation should be read. Popolon responded positively, but simply expressed his feelings on his own user talk page. 6-A04, for his part, reverted a warning without addressing the issue, and is demanding an admin response. Please provide one. --Abd (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Oscarter13 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Uploaded many images under Creative commons license. I checked 2-3 source sites and didn't find mentioning of license. Spanish-speaking administrator help needed. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not speak Spanish, but blocked the user for a week, restored his talkpage with all the warnings and deleted speedily most of his uploads. Some did not surpass threshold of originality and some were works of US government, these were kept. Taivo (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User without manners and practising canvassing without inhibition[edit]

Hello, I rarely come here but this case is definitely going too far and has become a problem in FPC and per extension in QIC, affecting a bunch of people. Livioandronico2013 cannot deal with fair criticism and responds with personal attacks. Furthermore there seem to be only one target for him: get his pictures successfully through QI and FP, regardless of policies (striking votes of others, canvassing) and a proper behaviour, as you can see here:

By the way, he was already blocked in March because of problems in QIC. Finally, I'd like to add that I had no issue with this user (actually he asked me for help and opinion in the past) until I opposed in one of this FP candidates. I find this behavour disruptive and far from civic and AGF. Thank you for your attention, Poco2 10:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

We analyze point by point then:

1)What we call door to door: (besides not being banned, he said also Benh here show me where the regulation forbids it and I'll give reason) is just asking a user if he saw my picture and what he thought, not I asked no votes and could have ended well and nobody would cry.

2) The overruling votes: I only did it once and I also explained why I did not insist ...

3) revenge votes : why your picture has been successful? Admit that it is not that great and not complain and I have answered your beautiful phrase :I have to say that if I had voted in some of your former nominations I'd have opposed.

And now we come to the point cutest Face-grin.svg:

4)The block :that was done in March was by various users (read here thanks) defined ridiculous and without reason. Made from usually only vendetta from the usual A.Savin who puts the negative votes on the FP only to me and without even motivate [20]

Finally .... I've had dozens and dozens of votes and failures from various people with whom I have never had a fight, but if someone comes and accept my photos without Ragio and without motivation or use phrases like :I have to say that if I had voted in some of your former nominations I'd have opposed or I suggest you to keep on working in your photographic skills, development and -if possible- equipment and go back to this place in one year. I do not think many of you would be happy If you want to object to a picture of me I do not have problems, but if it gets in bad faith or without reason or talking about personal things, for me is exaggerated,thanks.--LivioAndronico talk 14:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from this kind of ad hominem. If you continue your uncivil behaviour you might be blocked from editing. Natuur12 (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I would be uncivilized when I'm explaining .... ok thanks --LivioAndronico talk 14:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Please, give up beating about the bush, the bottomline is that it is you who are falling again and again into personal attacks, offending and insulting people, and violating the most elementary policies in the project (trying to intimidate others via canvassing and stricking votes). It is you and only you who is violting elemental project policies, and it is enough. Poco2 14:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
But please,the turns of phrase are explaining that what you say is false, I told you to show me where it is forbidden, where? And then that insults? --LivioAndronico talk 15:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Have you read the introduction of this thread? all diffs I provided are either personal attacks or violations of project policies. Poco2 16:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Poco. See also Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fontana del Quirinale (Rome) - Statue of Dioscuri.jpg where where's a complete loss of "assume good faith". Personal attacks on those who oppose are unacceptable and those nominating must be mature enough to accept some opposition, especially when they hit FPC with a constant stream of images that most contributors would be happy to have awarded QI. LivioAndronico has access to and a desire to photograph great subjects, but he seems unwilling to take advice, to fix mistakes or to accept criticism. If he's now canvassing, then that's the last straw in my opinion. -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Here Colin, another of the four ..... the only edit only and only to decline my photos, Isn't forbit ask to other a opinion and where are personal insults? Brings evidence,no drops. Thanks --LivioAndronico talk 17:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Because of the repeated conspiracy thinking, making people look bad and repeated uncivilnes I blocked him for 7 days. Can't say I didn't warn him Natuur12 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Apparently There are some people horrendous here ,but luckily they are only 4. LivioAndronico seems unable to comprehend that I and others oppose other images at FPC too, but thinks we are picking only on him. Perhaps his high rate of oppose votes is due to constantly hitting FPC with mere QI images. There's no shame in achieving QI only. Excuse me while I go off to practice my evil laugh. ...mwahahaha! -- Colin (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)