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.

11, 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
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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.


So I am having a bit of a problem with this user. They seem to be interested in increasing the intrinsic display size of various SVG logos, sometimes greatly bloating their original file size without any apparent improvement. As these are SVGs, this is not necessary since SVGs are scalable. I have reverted these files on occasion where the bloat was very large, but this user just keeps reverting. I freely admit my response on their talk page was not the most helpful, but they never responded until now with a quasi-threatening comment on my talk page. Since I don't think they will be likely to listen to me, can an admin discuss the SVG scalability with them? Fry1989 eh? 16:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Ragilnih: I agree with Fry1989 here. Bloating an SVG file from 2 KB to 50 KB just to change is size is not acceptable. In fact, re-uploading an SVG file just to change the size is usually unhelpful, since SVG files can be freely changed. Please cease those kinds of uploads. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Fry1989, see the both SVGs closer. The smaller version is over-optimised and has some but visible defects (therefore is not the same thing), unlike the bigger version. Should be better to use the bigger version and optimise it. --Amitie 10g (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, the file contained embedded raster; removing it should be better than coming to the AN. Assumming good faith is an official policy in Commons, and I already told you about fixing SVGs instead of claiming that the users are assumming bad faith when uploading non-optimised SVGs. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Er, AGF is a guideline, not a policy. That's why its introduction says If at all possible, assume good faith for the intentions of others ..., which means you may assume bad faith if appropriate (for example, long-term vandals). Poké95 03:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't even believe taking action against long-term vandal is assuming bad faith if the action aim to stop them. Wikicology (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Anyway, the version who Fry1989 deffended so hard is badly vectorised (over optimised, the lines and curves are not straight anbd these deffedcts are visible even at lower scaling). The right way is correcting it silently by removing the embedded-raster element instead of claiming that the user is assumming bad faith when uploading that bigger, but well-vectorised SVG. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me? I don't appreciate the way you're portraying this. I wasn't defending anything, all I saw was this user making the native resolution of the file bigger (unnecessary as it is a scalable SVG) and bloating the file size at the same time. The image themselves didn't appear to change at all, at least not that I noticed. And I already have humbled myself in saying the way I went about this wasn't helpful, which is why I am asking neutral admins to work on this issue with the user. Fry1989 eh? 18:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I need to repeat it? Just correct the SVG silently and tell kindly the user why the version that he uploaded is bad (this is the essence of Assuming good faith). If you didn't noticied the defects of the smaller SVG, please see the SVGs closer before claiming anything next time. By your behaviour, the only who need an administrative action is you. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


In spite of having been warned many times, L'honorable keeps on removing deletion request templates from some of his uploads (lately File:OStJ.jpg), even if he's perfectly aware of where the discussion takes place: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by L'honorable. Could an admin ask him to refrain from doint it again? Best regards --Discasto talk 23:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done I have given the user a last warning, since the previous warnings came from you, and the user was clearly upset about you. Please let us know if there are any more DR removals. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@Yann, Jcb, Clindberg, Jameslwoodward: I thought this might be your game Discasto. It begs the question, though, why on each and every occasion when you have unilaterally reverted my upload of OStJ you have failed to respond to my messages to you. I even ventured to suggest that you were angling to get me in trouble. This is an utterly poor show. This image has every right to be uploaded by me & I shall have no difficulty in proving so if it comes to that. BUT more to the point, why do you want to drag me into an Admin situation - I already made clear that I have just been released from a block on English Wiki, so it would appear to me that you, for reasons totally unknown, wish to cause trouble for me. The problem here though is that the image you persistently delete is my Decoration, my Photo & my Upload. So, if you have your way, you can bully me out of town just because you have taken exception to me. But why, you haven't even corresponded with me - until just now wherein you stated : "You actually asked for it --Discasto talk 23:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)" - NO, I didn't ask for IT (whatever that may mean) - but this for sure looks like victimisation.
I shall co-operate fully with the Admins & trust that sense can prevail. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@L'honorable: Please be careful in the case of edit conflicts. You removed my resolution above, which should not have happened. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Honestly I am getting it from all angles here & I sincerely did not mean to do that - didn't even know that I had done so - this is a cooked up attempt to get me blocked & it is working well. But why? L'honorable (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
What I did was upload an image of a decoration which was bestowed upon me by HRH. L'honorable (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Blocked 3 days for blanking the entire DR. [1] I didn't want to throw the book at him, hoping a few chapters will do. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a real question of whether or not L'honorable's modest contributions are worth the vast amounts of Admin time he has consumed with his long rants on several talk pages at once (see my archives, as well as those of Discasto and Jcb) and at the DRs. Perhaps the block should be indefinite?

However, in fairness I point out that for File:OStJ.jpg he claims "own work". As Yann has pointed out at the DR, the image is very small and has no EXIF, but it doesn't show up in a Google search, so maybe it is in fact "own work". As Yann suggests, he could answer the question by uploading a larger version of the file with the EXIF. However, the question is moot because we have a variety of much better images of the medal at Category:Insignia of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, so File:OStJ.jpg should be deleted as "not useful"..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

James is correct in any case but let's give the user a benefit of doubt. I hope they won't return to the same behavior next week. Happy editing. Wikicology (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Wikicology. Give them the benefit of the doubt for now, but my next block would be indefinite. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Continues his disruptive editing, indef worthy insult @ - I'd like this version to be supressed, better the whole talk page. I ask for an indef block with removal of email and talk page access. Copying his Commons-talk to enwiki. Asking for block there as well. Nothing good will ever come out of this, he's just a giant time waster. Is emailing Wiki UK to teach them about copyright. m( Probably a global lock would be better. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: Thanks for your fast reply. Could you clean the talk page from his insulting rant (starting at rev230434151)? Thx, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@JuTa, Jianhui67: Removal still needed, starting at rev230434151. Shall I do that myself? Any Objections? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hedwig, why you wanna hide those versions? I dont see a hard PA nor other reasons for it. Might be cause I'm coming from de: where there are realy strict rules about hiding versions or I, as a non-natve speaker, do not understand enough of it? --JuTa 05:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Implying a medical condition is a hard PA in my book. Got him blocked in the first place. Schmeiss den Satz mal in den Google Translator. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, auch in der google Übersetzung seh ich nich wirklich was. Er nennt Dich Internet-Troll. Aber das rechfertigt IMHO keine Versionslöschung. (Which medical condition?) --JuTa 06:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
are u of sound mind = impliziert Geisteskrankheiten. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
... kommt aber in Text nicht vor. --JuTa 06:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Ehrlich, ich denk das sollte ein native speaker beurteilen. Bin also hier raus. --JuTa 06:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Give me a call as soon as troll shit can be reverted. Until then Commons is not my project anymore. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I blanked the userpage - no need to have this kind of attacks on the talkpage. Good block Jcb! --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I blocked Mabelina because it is his old account/sock (blocked on multiple wiki). --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Drum brake anon IP causing trouble[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drum brake.jpg

GF only goes so far. Now it's vandalism from (talk · contribs). en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The People's Cube is maybe related.

Block them and save us all some trouble. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense DR closed with keep. Seems there's not much to do at Oklahoma State University right now. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

IP playing around with deletions.[edit]

It appears (talk · contribs) has made quite a few deletion nominations without any proper explanation. Can an admin clean this up please? Fry1989 eh? 01:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done.-- Geagea (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is well known Szm, the flag vandal. If you spot an IP from Quanzhou in Chinese Fujian province playing with flags – this is him. Anyway, I have just blocked the whole for a month. The blockade virtually doesn't harm anybody except him. --jdx Re: 02:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit war by user to enforce a file renaming[edit]

User:Luis camilo álvarez vega requested several file renamings for logos of several football clubs, all with renaming reason “error in filename”. Some of them I followed, though not because of this reason, but for another one I found reasonable. I denied renaming of File:Escudo del Club Banfield.svg, though, because I found out, that there is a redirect in Spanish Wikipedia, cf. es:Club Banfield, so the name cannot be an error. Alas, I did not mention this in my edit comment. After I was informed today the my edit had been reverted I declined again, this time with information, and I left a message on his user page only to see, that there was already another user‘s complain, see User talk:Luis camilo álvarez vega#File renaming requests. In the meantime Luis Camilo reverted a second time despite my edit comment. It seems to me, that he intends to request the renaming until he fiends someone, who does not do research before renaming. — Speravir – 17:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected for two days, if the user continues on other files or if the users is re-adding the rename template after the protection expires (whiteout prior discussion), then a block seems to be appropriate. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
And user warned. Ankry (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Flaxman 1821 Shield of Achilles in Huntington Collection.png[edit]

I have received a note that my file, File:Flaxman 1821 Shield of Achilles in Huntington Collection.png was deleted due to an unacceptable license on the original flickr page. As I indicated at the time of upload, this file is Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) and I'm sure I indicated the source correctly at Could someone please check this out and tell me what I did wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎AishaAbdel (talk • contribs) 01:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@AishaAbdel: I expect the problem was the Non-Commercial condition, which is not acceptable here. Please see COM:LIC regarding what is considered “free“ for Commons’ purposes.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


Sahib28 (talk · contribs) The user goes on to upload a file with no evidence of free license after warnings. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for three days for now. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)