Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcut: COM:AN/U · COM:ANU

Community portal
introduction
Help desk Village pump
copyrightproposals
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 legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
Other
[New section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed here.


Archives
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)


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.
  • 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.

PrinceNijam[edit]

User:PrinceNijam has repeatedly changed the author of files, such as File:Moju chowdhury hat.jpg, to themselves and then changed the licensing of the file without holding the rights to the file (also on File:Tara-masjid.jpg & File:Shat Gombuj Mosque (ষাট গম্বুজ মসজিদ) 002.jpg). They have been warned against doing so, acknowledged the warning, then continued to do it. The user also has claimed that they are a license reviewer or admin on images (that don't need Flickr review) such as File:Wikipedian Prince Nijam.jpeg, which I left as shown to be an example. I would like to request admin intervention, possibly even blocking the user, for these issues. Elisfkc (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a couple weeks. I deleted a few obvious copyvios. I guess Nijamahmed is an old alternate. The prince is certainly great at making a mess. INeverCry 21:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The prince claims, that his home wiki is en.wiki, but he is indefinitely blocked there as sockpuppet: en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mojuchowdhury-hat/Archive. I edited his userpage, where he claimed to be active since 2006 (correct is 2016), a steward and license reviewer. He added license in file:মোহাম্মদ নিজাম উদ্দিন.jpg, although the file does not look like selfie. Taivo (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I've created Category:Sockpuppets of PrinceNijam and blocked the 3 other socks. I used PrinceNijam as the master since it's the easiest name to remember. I've also deleted the above image as a copyvio. INeverCry 08:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

user problem[edit]

can not log in or create account with my user name Krassiyank —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.87.232.230 (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


Removal of file mover rights from OSX[edit]


User:Tuvalkin using mental illness as an insult[edit]

Tomthegg (talk · contribs)[edit]

User has received a last warning for copyright violations on , yet continues to illegitimately upload works without permission. Latest copyright violation was File:Carmella render.png, uploaded on . Previous copyright violation was on . No legitimate uploads from this account at all. 80.221.159.67 02:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the acct for 3 months. If there were more than 12 uploads, I would've indeffed him as a copyvio-only account. He'll likely end up indeffed anyways, but we'll give him one more shot. INeverCry 03:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

User:INeverCry[edit]

Heavy personal attacks on a recent RfA: [9], [10]; same insults along with vandalism (removal of my comment) [11] [12] [13]. --A.Savin 17:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I pointed out a revenge vote you made against Krd less than 4 years ago. I suggested that your vote against Krassotkin may be motivated by your dislike of me and my recent complaint about your block of Livio. I haven't made any personal attacks and I haven't done any vandalism. You're really going off the rails here. You edit war with me and remove my comments, and then come crying wolf here when I revert you. I have a right to voice my concerns. INeverCry 17:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
And then you continue to revert me and remove my comments (you conveniently leave your own comments in place) while bringing me here for the very same. Why don't you stop edit warring and let this report be addressed? INeverCry 17:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The normal approach would be to fully protect the page - this is not an option, both editors are administrators and can bypass full page protection, and it's unfair on a candidate to have their RfA edit protected. I would recommend both users are blocked until the conclusion of the RfA unless they are willing to reach a compromise on their statements at the RfA. Nick (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

May I also remind both parties that using your rollback tools while edit warring is a clear abuse of the admin tools? Really guys.... Natuur12 (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Please, can you read the linked comments by INC and say why you think that publicly accusing someone of revenge vote isn't personal attack. P.S. From my knowledge, rollback is not limited to admins, nonetheless I have now restored my legitimate (!) comment without rollback. INC had censored it FOUR times. Can anyone tell me why? --A.Savin 18:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Because you removed my response to Nick giving a diff of your obvious revenge vote against Krd in his RFA (with diff included). That action by you started this off. My voicing a concern about something you've done in the past isn't a personal attack. INeverCry 18:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
It is. Because it has really nothing to do with the ongoing RfA and it is a defamatory allegation that my recent vote is revenge. Your preference for extremely old diffs is nasty. They are irrelevant for the ongoing discussion. And nothing gives you the right to censor my comment which clearly wasn't any personal. --A.Savin 18:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I voiced an honest concern and produced a less than 4-year-old diff of a revenge vote you made in Krd's RFA. What gives you the right to decide what comments can stay in the RFA and which can just be removed by you because you feel they're "irrelevant"? Why not let others decide if I'm wrong in my concern? Instead you start an edit war and then call me a vandal. You're playing a game here. INeverCry 18:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Once again: Why do you consider it necessary to accuse me of rvenge voting against you? Can you please response? And surely I was not the one who started the edit war and I also didn't call you vandal. You really should resign your adminship for ever, as you are adding damage to Commons with your aggressive behaviour. --A.Savin 18:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you of anything. You made a blatant revenge vote against Krd in his RFA, and you know that. I've provided the diff. Your vote can be seen in his RFA. I just said perhaps it may be a revenge vote in Krassotkin's RFA because of the Livio situation. I didn't say it definitely was. Other voters can determine if they think my concern has merit or if it doesn't. As for resigning, perhaps you should consider doing that. You've been the aggressive one here, calling me a vandal in your edit summaries. You removed my comment first, and then you call me a vandal for removing yours. You've been taken to AN a lot more often that me. INeverCry 18:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a lie. And if you see it necessary to compare myself with you... Perhaps the comparison of both block logs does it somewhat better than "how often took to ANU". --A.Savin 18:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Krd:, as you were pinged here by INC for some reason: I really don't know anymore what was the background at that time, and I sincerely apologise for my oppose vote. I really don't know why INC considers it necessary to dig it out again and again, it's hopefully not my problem, merely his one. It's real old story (if there was any). --A.Savin 18:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nick: @Natuur12: I'm perfectly willing to let this end, but Savin continues to censor/remove my comment. I made that comment because I have an honest concern about Savin using revenge votes. He continues to leave his comments in place while removing mine. He made a blatant revenge vote against Krd in his RFA. someone who does one revenge vote may very well do others. How is my voicing a concern about this kind of behavior vandalism or a personal attack? INeverCry 18:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This is disheartening. Putting aside the issue of personal attacks, which can become mired in word games, I think there has to be a acceptance that "Might be a bit of revenge for my contesting his block of Livioandronico2013" [14] is not reasonably interpreted to be in line with COM:AGF. In the interest of getting on with more important things, INC, could you perhaps strike those comments and instead just ask A. Savin, dispassionately, for elaboration of his position? Either he can't, which will cause his vote to be discounted, or he can and we will have more data with which to assess a potential admin. I don't imagine that blocks or further escalation of this would be beneficial to the project. Эlcobbola talk 18:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Elcobbola here. I really hope that this issue gets resolved and there will be a compromise between A.Savin and INC. However, the key problem is this. We have one event and two opposing views. As there are two opposing views, there comes a conflict. It is like two blocks rubbing against each other because both are going in opposite directions. When that happens, there will be friction. If both A.Savin and INC believe what they are doing is right in their own eyes, there will not be a compromise. The key thing is for both of them to understand each other's views and where they are coming from. Then, there will not be misinterpretations and misunderstandings. I really hope the conflict gets resolved over here. It would be very saddening if we go into extreme measures. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 18:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Personal attacks are not s dispute, they are a violation of rules of any WMF project. INC insulted me in that RfA, and now we BOTH should be blocked? Unbelievable. --A.Savin 19:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I've removed my original comment to avoid further issues. @A.Savin: would you be willing to remove the two comments in the comments section, since they draw attention to my first comment? You can remove my response so there's no more reference to the content of my original comment. Krassotkin deserves an RFA without something that just draws attention away from him and his qualifications. I'll avoid making further comments in Krassotkin's RFA. I got a bit angry feeling I had to defend Krassotkin, but I don't think my comment was helpful. I'll also avoid comments directed at you from now on, as they'll only cause problems. I've got plenty of constructive stuff to do around here. INeverCry 19:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think that not any comments directed at me do cause problems, but your extremely aggressive behaviour, and that is every time you have your sysop flag. Hopefully you will loose it for ever as soon as possible. --A.Savin 19:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)P.S. Yes, I have removed the comments --A.Savin
@A.Savin: Regardless of what INC said (and I'm not defending it) edit warring isn't acceptable, especially between two admins. Both of you clearly know better. Reventtalk 19:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Assume good faith. There is no edit war anymore, but still a sysop who considers it necessary to insult his colleagues. (Even if he apologized, I wouldn't believe it anymore; there were already promises on Commons:Administrators/Requests/INeverCry (readmin) to stay mellow and so on, but obviously the behaviour is now about the same as at times he got blocked for 1 month due to Intimidation/harassment...) --A.Savin 19:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Everyone should be able to vote in a rfa without his past votes, or behavior, are peeled and analyzed. It's indeed a bit aggressive and in any case this can be felt as. If A.Savin provides not enough rationale for an oppose vote, feel free for anybody to ask him his rationale, but don't jump on him, please. I support remove everything about this conflict in the rfa (as done by A.Savin), and to warn both users not to bring it there again. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @INeverCry: please you see that this goes directly to conflict, please let the rfa as A.Savin want. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)