Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcut: COM:AN/U · COM:ANU

Community portal
Help desk Village pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

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.

10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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.

Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard[edit]

Can I help user Tm with removing Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard using Cat-a-lot? Johnny8181 (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. --Krd 13:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Who is blocked and why? --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Tm for running an unapproved bot which edits to fast. Natuur12 (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I see. Also, according to Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard, the answer to the original question is "no". Also, why would a likely sock-puppet with no previous edits ask that question? --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Related. Bot operators should follow so manners while using their bots. Refused to accept their mistakes even after asked is very rude as McZusatz is doing now. Jee 16:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Tm used cat-a-lot [1]. The block rationale of "unapproved bot" isn't true. Krd threatened to block me for the same thing. I used VisualFileChange, so again "unapproved bot" would've been false in my case as well. Tm did a whopping 1800 edits in a half hour BTW. As for McZusatz, he's always been a relaxed and reasonable guy, and the discussion pointed to looks to be pretty calm. He's trying to help out, and it's certainly nice to be able to edit a summary than the whole page. lNeverCry 00:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

User:AkBot is filling my watchlist with edits that only remove this "Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard". This seems to me to be blockable per above discussion and very very undesirable. Surely we all have better things to do (and to burn CPU cycles on) than removing some unimportant category from millions of files. Please can someone block this and post a notice wider to discourage this. -- Colin (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC) User:SteinsplitterBot also. -- Colin (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: I am runnung a cleanup script, can you please give me a difflink where a file hasn't been cleaned up. Thanks! :-). --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
this edit. Seem only concerned with removing the phased-out category. It's the only one in my watchlist. -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The edit is correct, the wikitext does not require other cleanup. A number of bots are doing this task right now, i see no issue. A bot got approved recently for exactly that Commons:Bots/Requests/HiW-Bot. You can hide bots from your watchlist. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I'm seriously confused. The linked discusion said "If a bot is tasked to remove the categorization, it should only do it together with other fixes in the respective file. Editing millions of files just because of a superfluous cat seems a bit excessive." The reply, from the guy who created the deletion request, was "Absolutely agree. Above point is very important to whoever actions this.". So why was that file edited with the only change being to remove this category? I'm not that concerned about my watchlist. I'm rather more concerned that people seem to think removing this from millions of files is a good use of resources and/or their limited time on earth. And with that, I'm unwatching this -- do what you like. -- Colin (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I share Colin’s confusion. The mentioned guideline, calling to join several minor changes in one same edit and to avoid edits that perform only one of such changes (and I presume, be it done by bot, by gadget, or manually), seems eminently sensible, and yet, judging from my own watchlist only, there’s a handful of bots and admins doing exactly that. Here’s a few examples from today’s crop: HiW-Bot, YaCBot, SteinsplitterBot, AkBot, INeverCry, and Czar. These have been going on for a long time, and yet when Tm does something like that (not even to mention the context of other edits), he gets immediately blocked. One more block to his list, for no good reason at all, enabling people later on to persecute him over his «lousy blocking record» (and compare with this expunged block, admin to admin). In the same context, nobody seems to notice that Tm got hit with something as unpleasant as a block, while multiple voices were raised deploring that Krd (who was elected to deal with stuff) was as much as mentioned at BN. So, no admin cronyism running rampant hand-in-head with a hamfisted approach against regular users, especially the maligned so-called power users — or am I confused? -- Tuválkin 17:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I have better things to do on a Friday evening than discuss the UploadWizard category removal! But since I was pinged by Tuvalkin, I wonder if using Catalot is more resource-intensive than using a bot. I don't know much about how either work, but would the former require each page be downloaded, edited and saved, whereas the latter could be done on the server? If that's so, I can definitely see why using a browser-based tool to automate editing some of 5 million files would be very very unwise. -- Colin (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • You have to love the double standards on here - You block TM for mass removing the category yet at the same we have what 4 or 5 bots removing the exact same category and at the same time filing up my watchlist .... Surely Steinsplitters bot is enough ? ... how many more bots are going to take up my watchlist and or remove this category ? ... It's ridiculous - One bot is sufficient. –Davey2010Talk 18:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    There's an obvious difference: Tm and Havang(nl) aren't bots, and can't mark their edits as bot edits, and flood watchlists. As for AkBot @Ankry: please mark its edits as bot edits. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Zhuyifei1999: They are generally marked. Mabe except few testig ones. I noticed that cat-a-lot does not mark edits as bot edits, even if run as bot account. Is it intentional? Or am I missing something? Ankry (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    Oops, perhaps I mislooked, sorry. As for cat-a-lot, the api call data near line 504 does not include "bot: true", and perhaps mediawiki defaults that parameter to false. Do you think that should be added? (IMO, it's a bot weird when cat-a-lot isn't a bot framework, but that flag is ignored anyways when the user doesn't have the bot permission, iirc) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Zhuyifei1999: Unsure. I talked to Steinsplitter about this, and he suggests that cat-a-lot is not useful for massive task in any case as it is too resource-consuming. However, I think there should be a better way to prevent such an action than RC monitoring. Just noticed that it is not logical that massive action made by a bot account is not bot-marked. Ankry (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I switched off my bot from doing that task, i am tired with this absolutely unnecessary drama. And by the way: Cat-a-lot is ignoring mw:API:Etiquette by flooding the api with x-requests per seconds, and of course cat-a-lot is parsing the page and then changing the category - there is no way to do it server-side. Cat-a-lot, hot-cat, etc. are java script client side tools written by volunteers not directly affiliated with mediawiki. A number of users are thinking that cat-a-lot, hot cat, et all are part of mediawiki but that isn't true - it is just java script, nothing on server side. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Steinsplitter - FWIW I have no issue with your bot whatsoever, Your bot is the only one that should be running it IMO. –Davey2010Talk 18:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Steinsplitter has asked me a few days ago to disable cat-a-lot usage on that category. I initially refused so users can have more freedom, but if this has to be done, I will do it. (VFC won't be exempted) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I got automatic notification of this discussion. I was the one who asked for using cat-a-lot before I started using it. I did 40.000 edits in one hour manually, thinking to be helping. I was higly surprised to get blocked without warning by [User:Krd]]. User:Steinsplitter let me know it was a misunderstanding and I was soon unblocked bij Krd. Now I just remove the cat from templates with included category, see . Can an admin adapt this sort of templates in a way that the cat-inclusion is annulated? --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Please could the edit summaries be clearer when this category is being removed? Just saying "category deletion" as @AkBot, Ankry say, or "Bot: Removing phased-out category." as @SteinsplitterBot, Steinsplitter say, or "Bot: Removing category per discussion" as @SchlurcherBot, Schlurcher say, or "Removing phased out category." as @HiW-Bot, Hedwig in Washington say, is not great when you have many images in your watchlist where this category is being used, and you have to check to see if it is *this* category rather than another one that's being edited. Please could the bot operators add the name of the category into the edit summary? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Mike Peel: There's a link to the community decision under this text. Is in not enough? Ankry (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    • The link is definitely good, thanks for including it. However, it doesn't help too much when looking through a long watchlist since you have to click on it to find out that it's about this category. Is adding the category name into the edit summary a big job? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
      • OK, I will add in next run if it does not exceed changelog entry size. Ankry (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Thank you! Mike Peel (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
          • Updated my bot's changelog as well. Thanks for linking my name, so I could find this discussion. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Too many bots are running this useless job too quickly. In recent hours User:‎YaCBot and User:akBot have been most prominent on my watchlist, so the best thing they could do is stop. Probably other criteria would indicate additional ones. Perhaps there are many bot operators who have nothing useful to do and want to participate in this. They could take turns, each running on a particular day. Or they could collaborate on one, more sophisticated bot that would combine this useless task with a few slightly useful ones. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jim.henderson: As it is noted above: You can hide bots from your watchlist (if you wish). There were at least 4 bots working on this task today in various parts of this category. AFAIK all bots are performing other minor cleaning together with this task. But most files do not require any other cleaning. If you wish to remain them untouched, maybe for next few years, requires this decision to be changed, I think.
Moreover, if you still wish to receive notifications from bots, I can't understand how receiving 50,000 notifications one day is worse than receiving 5,000 notifications per day in 10 subsequent days.
Note also, that too many fixes in a single edit often results in unpredicable and unexpected effects because of bot software undocumented bugs of just unnoticed mistakes. Ankry (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The best part of this is the information that it's approximately a ten day job, at current speed. That means it will finish next week sometime. I don't know where to find the information for a calculation, and feared that the onslaught would continue at high intensity for many weeks. Yes, doing it in a single day would be better, and stretching it out to a few months would be better yet. As it happens, I found a slight benefit. With all (or almost all) my old pictures appearing once and only once on the watchlist, I could check each picture for location errors, inadequate categorization and so forth. Temporarily. The rate soon increased until it was faster than I can check. Hiding all bot changes has the disadvantage of hiding also the changes made in the day or several hours before the bot, but that's what I have been doing. My best solution has been to suspend most category diffusion and similar Commons maintenance activities. After the disruption ceases, I'll gradually increase those activities, but remain aware that more powerful users have little respect for manual curatorial work like mine. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

good and then start in on Category:UW uploads using a custom license. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 13:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


Musa Raza[edit]

Musa Raza (talk · contributions · Move log · Number of edits · logs · block log) This user removes information from file descriptions, and try to change the "own work" claim of his/her uploads with speedy deletion nominations. All the edits and uploads need review. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Only 4 remaining files: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shyam actor.png, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Musa Raza. Yann (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I suggest restoring the recently deleted files. I also have doubts concerning earlier nominations: they requested deletion of an OTRS verified image as a copyrighted one exists on enwiki. IMO, that should not have been accepted. Ankry (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Yann, Why not consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page before reporting them here? Wikicology (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Yann, Ankry, Wikicology: All of my uploads (except verified OTRS/Flickr) are copyright violations I don't own the rights. Many of my uploads have been deleted previously because of copyright violations. I'm not lying it's up to you that you believe me or not. If you want to keep these files then keep them but it will be copyright violation. I tagged them with deletion tags just because they are copyright violations but you removed my edits. So now I'm not doing anything you can do whatever is right. Thank you.--Musa Raza (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Musa Raza: This would be not a problem if you pointed out the real sources... Ankry (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ankry: I don't remember the real sources but I took all the uploads from Facebook or Google Images. You can find them if you search.--Musa Raza (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


Kayesh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploadsblock user

probably also Tawhid Rahman parvin (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploadsblock user

Can someone look at their contribution? Looks like cross-wiki spam on translation page(s). A translation admin needed to revert / delete. A MediaWiki bug Ankry (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Kayesh is warned and in my opinion no other action is needed now. Taivo (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


Salut Cet utilisateur commet des attaques personnelles : "il est clair qu'elles ne vous conviennent pas, mais ce n'est pas une raison d'inventer des arguments absurdes. Ce n'est pas constructif.". Dénigre autrui juste parce que je dis que des photos sont des sources primaires et non pas secondaires. Rappelons-nous qu'il s'est plaint de moi il y a peu. Merci de faire le nécessaire. --Pannam2014 (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Bonjour, je vous signale que tout de suite après son blocage le 23 novembre 2016 à 09:47 pour insultes, Pannam2014 est parti sur WP-EN continuer ses insultes et il insulte en plus l'administrateur Yann qu'il traite d'ignorant ==> [2].
De plus je confirme que Pannam2014 utilise des arguments absurdes. Je vous donne trois exemples:
  1. Il écrit à propos du site : "que le site soit un site de vente est une bonne chose, ce sont donc des experts en Vexillologie. C'est donc une source académique" ==> [3].
  2. Il écrit à propos de la source fournie par Buxlifa: "Ta source est hors sujet et à côté de la plaque, puisque celle-ci parle de 1945 et non pas de 1958" ==> [4] alors que dans la source c'est écrit : "Ce drapeau avait été confirmé comme emblème national par le comité central du Parti en 1949, puis normalisé par une décision du GPRA au cours d'une réunion du 3 avril 1962 à Tunis et enfin institutionnalisé par la loi n°63-145 du 25 avril 1963 de la République algérienne démocratique et populaire" ==> [5].
  3. Il écrit : "je constate après 8 jours que personne n'a fourni de source contradictoire" ==> [6] alors qu'il y a 9 sources qui contredisent la sienne. Bien à vous --Ms10vc (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

User Crossswords[edit]

Serial copyright violator.

Uploads multiple files with asserted "own work" that are NOT "own work" but are instead blatant copyvio.

Warning -- data uploaded by user may be inaccurate -- Quite likely related to form of propaganda pushing by Trolls from Olgino, more info at [7].

Sagecandor (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User reverting copyvio tags, most recently at File:Video game rating systems in europe.JPG. Pushed that one into deletion discussion. Disruptive. Sagecandor (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
how are world maps made by me in MS Paint violating copyright? Youre clearly harassing me and vandalizing my work for the one subject and dissagrement we have of the Fake News article as those pictures have nothing to do with your agenda--Crossswords (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Admins Pi.1415926535 and Ankry would appear to disagree -- the first deleted copyvio at File:Traffic for the term fake news.jpg, and the 2nd reverted user disruption at File:Video game rating systems in europe.JPG [8]. Sagecandor (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
User warned. @Sagecandor: be more careful with your nominations: data is not copyrighted, only images are. There is no evidence that the map were copied from external source. Unjustified nominations can be interpreted as harasment and are also reason to block a user. Please move political discussions somewhere else. Ankry (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ankry:I apologize if something was mistakenly tagged, to which image are you referring that was not copyrighted? Sagecandor (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Sagecandor asked me to comment here. I can only speak to the two files I came across browsing the administrator's backlog: File:Traffic for the term fake news.jpg (an obvious copyvio) and File:Gdp per capita shown in Western Deutsche Mark for the year 1965 in a western german schoolbook.png (not a copyvio so far as I can tell, but I cannot speak for the accuracy of the information). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ankry:It appears I may have been mistaken about File:Gdp per capita shown in Western Deutsche Mark for the year 1965 in a western german schoolbook.png, but glad the other valid concerns about copyright were addressed. Thank you for warning the user. I'll take more care to check copyvio images. Sagecandor (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
its from a german school book, harms geschichtsatlas nr 440--Crossswords (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


Slowking4 keeps adding clearly erroneous author/source information, see here, after clear instructions here. Can somebody explain to Slowking4 that a 2D reproduction of a 1931 work, by an author who died in 1938, is not own work from the uploader and that the uploader is not the author? Jcb (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Own work may be relevant here. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Slowking4, the context of "Own work" on Wikimedia Commons refers to works that you explicitly created yourself. "Own work" means you owned the right and that is not the case here. I understand that the works in question are out of copyright, but this does not simply suggest that they may be uploaded as own work by anyone. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Slowking4: and @Jcb: If you want to distinguish between the creator of the 'depicted artwork', and the 'photographer' (which is not a bad thing, for clarity), please use {{Art photo}}, which allows you to give the information seperately, and in a more clear manner. And don't edit war. Reventtalk 09:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I've fixed this to use {{Art photo}}, so hopefully people can stop arguing (and, hopefully, fix whatever other images you have done this to). Unfortunately, nobody fighting here fixed the actual problem... that the license had been changed, and was clearly wrong. @Hadi: You changed this from {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} to {{PD-Art-two-auto|1938}}. This was wrong.... the image is not a 'faithful reproduction of a 2D work of art', as it contains the frame, and so a license from the photographer is required unless the frame is cropped out (and revdel). Also, your license indicated that the painting (produced in 1931) was PD in the US because it was published in that country prior to 1923... both without evidence, and physically impossible. Please be far more careful if 'correcting' licenses. Reventtalk 10:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks good now, thanks for the fixes! Jcb (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Kumarappanghelliah & User:Kumarappavelar[edit]

Both accounts are uploading alot of personal photos. I already sent a notice to Kumarappanghelliah for possible deletion of unused personal selfie photos. I think Kumarappavelar is a sockpuppet of Kumarappanghelliah. NinjaStrikers «» 10:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted a ton (selfies, duplicates, low quality), left the rest alone. Warning left on both talk pages. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)