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.

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, 54, 55, 56, 57
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, 56, 57, 58
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.


I really don't think there's any such thing as Category:Cuisine of Maryland, Virginia, etc. but [1] this contributions list shows some serious overcategorization at work. For another example, I don't see the Mountain Dew in every one these photos at Category:Mountain Dew and these kinds of situations in many other categories. Also the soda is now listed as Southern cuisine when it is a national product. Help please? Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ellin Beltz, I've taken a quick look at the Maryland one, and I think it's a legitimate attempt to bring all food related topics for Maryland under the same category. It may need renaming, but I don't see a particular problem with its existence. Certain places do have their specific dishes - for instance the Cornish Pastie, the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie, Champagne, etc. Maybe exported around the world, but no doubt the cuisine of that particular place.
I did remove "Dumplings of Canada" and "Dumplings of the United States" (what?) from Chicken and dumplings. But generally I don't see a particular problem with the categorisation - the issues seem marginal at best, and I think it's fair to say the South has a distinct cuisine. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Well one of the pies I baked in California (USA) from a Pennsylvania/New Jersey (Native American, USA) family recipe which dates back over 250 years, was moved into "Southern Cuisine" and I fail to see how that could happen. There is no lock on "Southern" for old United States foods, many of them were universal in all the original 13 United States (even in colonial times). I think categorizing by U.S. state is way too small of a categorization, especially for the tiny ones back on the Eastern sea board of the U.S. Another problem is that Maryland is not a Southern state (not even in the U.S. Civil War), so I fail to see why its cuisine would be considered "Southern" although this Cuisines of Maryland page leads to Category:Cuisine of the Southern United States. There's a lot of that fine detail gone wrong in this scheme. Same for the various soft-drinks which have now been assigned as "cuisine" of various areas and don't seem like cuisine at all, nor - as national brands - are they "localized" to area at all. I think the biggest problem is that cuisine in the U.S. is a national item and dividing it into southern and northern is not accurate or helpful to the end users. Look at the huge mess in Southern Cuisine category to see what I mean. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, FWIW, the US Census Bureau lists Maryland in the Southern Region (per this). That is grounds for considering it to be southern. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


User User:Motopark has marked my own work for deletion because "Genehmigung des Urhebers bzw. Rechteinhabers fehlt". --DerPetzi (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I have answered in your talk page and see history who has started deletion request--Motopark (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@DerPetzi: File:Ovido orange.png is not your own work, because it is a logo. It is impossible you make that. Poké95 09:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: Really? It is impossible? Wow, are you a clairvoyant Why do you refuse my skills? A note for you: This is a registered trademark own by myself. Anyway, you can delete all stuff I've uploaded ever. --DerPetzi (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@DerPetzi: Then how can you prove that you own that logo? Everyone can say they own Coca-Cola, or maybe Minecraft, but of course I (and also others) will not believe them. Anyway, that is not the issue now, but the issue is that File:Ovido orange.png is unused, and because it is unused, it is non-notable. It may be deleted due to being unnotable. If you want the logo that you are saying yours to be kept, then create an article at Wikipedia and explain there why it is notable. You should also provide sources of it.
Also, I am not an administrator, so I cannot delete images. Poké95 09:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
And also please note that you cannot advertise here. See COM:ADVERT. Poké95 09:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

VI criteria not being properly applied[edit]

@Charlesjsharp:, @Archaeodontosaurus:, @Ercé:, @Medium69:

I have been trying to persuade a group of editors, four of whom are named above, that they are disregarding Valued image criteria #4.2 when they should be following it. That criteria states "There should be a full and informative description of what the image depicts, along with any relevant auxiliary information. Links to Wikipedia (or elsewhere) should be included to assist with verification." The editors concerned argue that the links to Wikipedia (or elsewhere) are optional. Only one of the editors concerned uses English as a mother tongue so I am prepared to accept that they have misunderstood the word "should".

Since three the editors that I named are French (part of Projet Phoebus) and I do not speak French, I tried the following experiment:

I entered the sentence "Children should go to school" into Google Translate. It gave the French translation "Les enfants doivent aller à l'école". I then used the same program to translate the French sentence back into English and I got " Children must go to school". In my view (as a native English speaker), this is nearly correct. My own explanation of the difference is: "If the word "prohibit scores 0%, the word "optional" scores 50% and the word "mandatory" scores 100%, then the word "should" scores 98%".

Specific areas where this problem has arisen:

Will an administrator whose mother tongue is English please confirm my analysis of the word "should" in the above context is correct, that my interpretation of Valued image criteria #4.2 is correct and caution the editors concerned about misapplying the VI rules and remind them that in misapplying the rules they are devaluing the award. Martinvl (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Abuses, repeated of Martinval are a problem. We can not stop several times a day to meet these demands. It seems he had some free time; maybe he could take photographs. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Martinvl: The users you named above are very valuable users by the content they give and by the time they spend here. If you want to participate in such internal assessment projects, you should inspire yourself by them and learn with their experience. And you should not make them lose time. Regard, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Extract from the translation en version: Commons:Valued image criteria/fr
4.2. Doit y figurer une description complète et informative de ce que l'image représente, ainsi que toute information additionnelle pertinente. Les descriptions multilingues doivent utiliser le modèle multilingue approprié, par exemple : |description={{da|Denne beskrivelse er på dansk.}}. Une description en anglais est préférée, mais non essentielle.
There is absolutely no mention of the obligation of a wikilink. The links references for images has never been a mandatory requirement.
Martinvl abuse clearly a rule that does not exist. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 16:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not at all familiar with the Valued Image policy and customs, so I can't really help resolve this issue. However, I think I've noticed the origin of the policy confusion. The "Links to Wikipedia (or elsewhere) should be included to assist with verification" sentence in section 4.2 was added to the English policy page with this edit after this this proposal earlier this year. Unfortunately it appears the French version of the policy page was not updated to match the English version. —RP88 (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
That's the wrong way round. Mastinvl had no authority to add that edit and it should be reverted. He made the proposal that you refer to above, but there was no discussion on it and no consensus. @Martinvl: Please remove your edit. Charles (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • English is my mother tongue and if Martinvl had had the courtesy to ask me I would have told him that in English we use MUST when it is compulsory, SHOULD when it is only expected. Try looking at the Oxford Dictionary, not Google. We are all trying to improve Wikimedia by nominating images - in my case, photos I have taken myself, researched and carefully categorized. If I don't like another nomination I say so (probably upsetting people along the way - sorry Medium69). I know that some editors (more on QI candidates) just wave through images so they can win friends and get their own stuff promoted. I don't. Wikimedia Commons VI process would work a lot better without an interfering busybody making everyone else's life a misery. In future I intend to ignore Martinvl's contributions as if they weren't there. Charles (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I reverted the changes made by Martinvl on Commons:Valued image criteria, as the regulars have never heard about this change. No answer is not a consensus, no one has approved this change. I advice you @Martinvl: to not make any other change on rules without the approval of the community or it will be considered as vandalism. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: Was it your intention to leave the "Links to Wikipedia..." sentence in section 4.2? The reason I ask is that your second undo actually added it back. Also, are you sure you actually want to remove his second change? That proposed change did appear to receive some discussion on the talk page. —RP88 (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks indeed, my point was the links. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Though the other change have also not been discussed here by the regulars of the project. I put a notice on this talk page with a link, but maybe it should be better to redirect one with the other. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand better ... so @Martinvl: to change the rules for VI without referring to the community. This is much more serious than just his opposition to the vote. That alone and his current behavior deserves punishment in my opinion. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 18:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: You are mistaken - I did consult the community here, but nobody seemed interested. Now will you please undo your changes.
You are the sole author of this. No survey was made. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 19:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Or in other words. Argumentum ex silentio. Natuur12 (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Medium69: Will you please now apologize for your improper accusation? Martinvl (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Instead, I will monitor all your contributions and report you to your next actions. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 19:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Martinvl You changed the rules without the consent of the community, you now make a trial to the regular folks of the project for a rule they do not have approved, and they are perhaps even unaware. You make lose time to every one. I blocked you for vandalism and disruption for a duration of two weeks. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Christian Ferrer: sure, I can see that Martinvl has been unnecessarily confrontational here, but where is the evidence of vandalism? DeFacto (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Nothing against you @DeFacto: but try to change the rules in QI, VI or FP projects without the consent (long discussions, votes...) of the whole community and you will see what is vandalism and how it is solved. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: thanks, I defer to your experience and wisdom here, but the judgement did seem harsh to me. DeFacto (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
And your humanity honor yourself, really, but honestly I don't think there is another solution, look at his last comment before the really, no, he would have not understood by discussion. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@DeFacto: The rules were established in April 2008. On January 31, 2015, on page dicsussion of rules, he submits a new rule. 48 hours later, it changes this rule. And there, for several days, he puts forward a rule that arbitrarily created by opposing the community.
If I had been a admin, I can guarantee you that the punishment would have been much heavier. I find instead that the sentence is very lenient given the gravity of these facts. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 21:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Medium69: thanks for the clarification. I have only been interested in VI since the end of August 2015 and did not know the history or the procedures or the multi-lingual rules. I now understand your anger. DeFacto (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


Kartiktiwary (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia for persistent copyright violations (over 40 incidents since July – see en:User talk:Kartiktiwary). He's now using Commons to upload images deleted as copyvios on Wikipedia, and apparently using a sockpuppet account Kritaksh (talk · contribs) to reinsert them in Wikipedia articles (see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kartiktiwary).

Could an administrator please block both accounts here and nuke their recent uploads here? At least File:Rihand Dam.jpg and File:Attractions in Sonbhadra.jpg were both judged copyvios on English Wikipedia (see en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 November 13#File:Rihand Dam.jpg and en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 November 18#File:Attractions in Sonbhadra.jpg). —Psychonaut (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Some uploads have even OTRS-permission. The "sock" has not made any edits. Sockpuppet investigation in has not finished. Nevertheless, I delete two mentioned files. Feel free to nominate some other uploads for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Taivo: Both accounts are now blocked on English Wikipedia for copyright violations and CU-confirmed sockpuppetry. If you still aren't going to block the accounts here, I suggest you keep a close eye on them. Kartiktiwary's already had at least eleven of his uploads here deleted as copyvios. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked both accounts. As Taivo notes, Kritaksh hasn't edited here, but the CU-confirmed link means that any edits by that account will necessarily be a case of block evasion, which our policies here prohibit. Kartiktiwary has a significant history of copyvio uploads here, so I've given a {{Copyviouploadindefblock}} and deleted all of his uploads except for the ones with OTRS permission. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


Bwag continues reverting the image description of File:Wien - Westbahnhof, Migranten am 5 Sep 2015.JPG. The words in dispute are "illegal, jedoch von der Staatsgewalt toleriert" (="illegal but tolerated by the government"). This phrase is highly pov and furthermore even wrong (the refugees didn't migrate illegally, they eben can't do this because trying to seek asylum is a human right granted amongst others by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and Austrian federal laws). Or in short: These people aren´t illegal immigrants but refugees. I explained this to the user but he still reverts my edit (see [2]). Apart from that, he changes the term "refugees" to "migrants" in the English part of the description. This is a factual error, too, because there is a difference between migration and asylum seeking. In addition he also insists in using the historic term "Völkerwanderung" ("emigration of nations") that scientifically is used for the period in late ancient Europe when Celtic and Germanic tribes migrated into several provinces of the Roman empire. You can´t use this term to describe the current European refugee crisis simply said because it is not an emigration of whole nations. Also the cirumstances and backgrounds are completely different. In connection to the refugee crisis this term is mostly used in a populist far-right meaning. I ask to stop Bwag´s obviously politically intented edit war and to ensure a npov file description.. Chaddy (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. Reverted and warned. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
"This phrase is highly pov ..." no, compare, see: Dubliner Übereinkommen. -- Bwag (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Your link is wrong. Actually this one is the right one: de:Verordnung (EU) Nr. 604/2013 (Dublin III). But I already told you that Dublin is intergovernmental. It regulates which country is responsible for the application. Single persons can´t infringe this regulation. Chaddy (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Zoltán Kovács: "Erstens sind diese Leute illegale Migranten, ...." und "Weil deutsche und österreichische Meinungsmacher den Eindruck erweckt haben, dass alle Flüchtlinge willkommen sind, lehnen diese Leute zunehmend die Kooperation mit den Behörden ab. Sie verweigern die Registrierung. Also weit haumas broacht. Der ungarische Politiker darf noch sagen, was Sache ist - ich als unentgeltlicher Fotograf bei Commons darf das nicht mehr. -- 15:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
You cite a member of the nationalist Hungarian Fidesz party? Facepalm3.svg Chaddy (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
What's the problem with Fidesz? Do you like only Social Democratic Party or Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party and have you a problem with democracy? -- Bwag (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as someone from the other side of the world: "illegal" is a pretty strong word. If whether or not something is legal is disputable, a contentious matter almost certainly does not belong in the description on this site. To take an example from my own country: the states of Washington and Colorado (and recently a few others) permit stores that sell cannabis, which remains against a federal law that the federal government has decided not to enforce in this case. It would be very contentious to caption a picture of one of these as an "illegal marijuana store." - Jmabel ! talk 01:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

indefinitely blocked?[edit]

I ask one user become indefinitely blocked. Experienced administrators are welcome there. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like QI, FP, and VI attract way more drama than other areas of our work here in Commons. Maybe the matter should be addressed as a whole? -- Tuválkin 14:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I hope than a 2-weeks block is enough. When not distruptive, Martinvl is able to be a fruitful contributor. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely not. When someone publicly proposes a change, and nobody offers input, it's entirely reasonable to make the change, and nobody has any business sanctioning the user. This is nowhere close to vandalism, disruption, or anything else problematic, and your indefinite block without warning and without discussion makes me question whether you should be exercising the block button. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nyttend: FWIW, Martinvl was not indefinitely blocked. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right, and I'm sorry. Somehow I thought Christian had indefinitely blocked Martin, and you'd reduced it (i.e. this was a request to re-indef him); I don't know how I misread things. I still hold my opinion about the thorough impropriety of any block in this situation. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


I think, that no one has to put up with such personal insults as this. Particularly the expression "terrorism" is outrageous.--Correlatio (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

"Personal insults" - you're serious ? The expression is clearly aimed at your disgusting ideology. You have to admit that your only "contribution" to Commons is to destroy systematically the work of other Users. So you don't have to complain if someone reacts. The "User problem", that's you. --Jwaller (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jwaller: I reverted your message. I don't know if the DR is justified or not, but your words are inappropriate and out of place. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
If you think so, I accept your edit. --Jwaller (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Regrettably, I had to revert User:Jwaller's comments([3] and [4]) again, as they contained even legally problematic personal attacks on other users and referred to copyright in general (which he seems to reject). I have warned the user in his native language that such behaviour is not acceptable and that next time he might get blocked. The aggressiveness of his comments in this DR discussion hampers a constructive evaluation of the nominated files. --Túrelio (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[edit]

That anonymous user continues to create pages that are out of scope even though they are already warned. Example of the pages this user created is Category talk:1893. I suggest to block that IP for one day. Thanks, Poké95 12:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. Pages deleted. Yann (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)