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
uploading
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
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)


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.


Kephir and fictional flags[edit]

I believe this user should be banned from nominating fictional flags for deletion. There have been several issues with this, as previously discussed both here and in this DR. Particularly in the DR, they have stated they feel any fictional flag is up for deletion. That simply goes against the practice for the last 6 years I've been here and certainly longer. It is no longer appropriate for them to focus their deletion nominations on this subject. Fry1989 eh? 17:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting any particular admin action, but I find it annoying that: 1) User:Kephir has been told that having a general open public discussion on the subject as a whole would be preferable to sniping at individual files, yet Kephir has instead chosen the path of continuing to stir up turmoil by going after individual files one at a time (which would seem to betray certain drama-loving tendencies on his part). 2) Kephir never takes into account any objections by other users, or pointed rebuffs to his suggested deletions (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bandera Gay Reino Unido.png), but instead imperviously continues on in exactly the same way that he started, without any change of any sort to his approach, or to his generic boilerplate cookie-cutter one-size-fits-all text (copied and pasted into almost all his deletion nominations). 3) Kephir's response to myself and Fry1989 objecting to certain of his deletion nominations was to nominate some files uploaded by us for deletion. Kephir gets all huffy and faux-offended when this is raised, but it's strongly indicative that the first file of mine he nominated for deletion was the most recent "special or fictional flag" image on my uploaded files list -- certainly Kephir has not bothered to offer any alternative plausible scenario as to how "File:National flag of the Whoovians.svg" came to his attention... AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Well I am demanding admin action. This user has made it clear they will deliberately and without any sincere judgement focus on fictions flags solely on the grounds that they are fictional, and there's clearly enough ignorant admins willing to go along with them. Combining that with Kephir's incompetence with the two DRs mentioned by AnonMoos, it is unacceptable that they be allowed to initiate DRs on this subject any longer. Fictional status alone IS NOT an acceptable reasoning for deletion, that has been the accepted practice for as long as I've been here and longer. Fry1989 eh? 18:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Still waiting on a response. I'm not letting the bot sweep this one away. Fry1989 eh? 18:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Fry1989:, if the user has indeed stated such on the wiki (not off-wiki, that is), then I suggest that a RfC is called for. --Pitke (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I linked it ABOVE. Not only in that DR did they state "This fictitious flag deserves deletion just like any other.", they have recently spent their time nominating a string of images for deletion on the grounds of "fictional flag". They don't elaborate, for example that the image in question is deliberately misleading or some other aggravating factor for deletion, they just say it's fictional so it must go. That, combined with their lack of due diligence in nominating File:Bandera Gay Reino Unido.png shows they can not be trusted in this subject. Fry1989 eh? 22:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Again another example of an admin going along with these invalid nominations. This one more importantly also has a revenge aspect against AnonMoos, being nominated shortly after their commenting on my original AN regarding Kephir's actions here. This needs to be dealt with NOW, stop ignoring this! Fry1989 eh? 18:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Do I seriously have to burn the house down for this to get some sort of attention? Don't tempt me. Fry1989 eh? 17:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I also find really unfair that he came to it.wiki to edit (i.e.: vandalize) a template for removing an image in use in hundreds of articles just to nominate it for deletion on Commons because "unused". --Gambo7 (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This logo is not genuine and should not be presented as such. Omitting the edit summary does not constitute vandalism. Please COM:AGF. Keφr (keep talk here) 18:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Kephir, some of the functions of "fake" logos were explained on your user talk page 4 months ago, and in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Parana Clube FF.png two weeks ago. It's one of your less appealing characteristics that you never modify your behavior in any way in response to information supplied to you. Most people are able to undergo a process called "learning"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Deceiving readers has no justification, ever. Full stop. You are making ad hominems again. Keφr (keep talk here) 19:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Have you ever considered that if you have no interest or relevant expertise with respect to Italian Wikipedia, but you insist on intruding yourself there anyway and trying to teach them their own business, then you're being incredibly rude? AnonMoos (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Harrassment by AnonMoos[edit]

Can someone block AnonMoos for two weeks? He has been doing nothing but harassing me over my deletion nominations, which no administrator finds objectionable. He follows me in every deletion nomination I participate in, even those that have nothing to do with flags or symbols of any kind (like [1]). Instead of arguing for files I nominate and defending how they fall in COM:SCOPE, he keeps attacking my person in dicsussions. (Examples should be easy to find: just look at Special:Contributions/AnonMoos.) I have had enough of this, really. Keφr (keep talk here) 18:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

First off, keeping an eye on the deletion nominations you make is a way of limiting the potential damage from your unfortunate behavior -- and in fact I've only intervened in a distinct minority of your proposed deletion nominations before today. Second, pointing out problematic actions on your part is not "ad hominem". Third, if anyone deserves to be blocked, it's you, since you've refused to adjust or modify your inappropriate and unwelcome patterns of action in any way whatsoever, despite concerns being raised with you on numerous occasions. Furthermore, you were specifically advised on your user talk page that if you refused to engage in the discussion here (which you didn't until just now), and instead started in with a whole new round of deletion nominations against inoffensive (i.e. non-hoaxing non-hatemongering) special or fictional flags, it would be unlikely to be interpreted as evidence of good faith on your part. In that light, it's hard not to see a certain malicious and spiteful element in your decision to "double down" and launch numerous further such deletion nominations (of the type which have created turmoil before) earlier today... AnonMoos (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Popping by to confirm that I am an admin and find your concentrated effort against fictional flags problematic. I will address it sooner rather than later given my OOW life permits. --Pitke (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
There's no harassment by any user against you. If you don't like the fictional section of flags -> stay away. For the record: certainly no block for AnonMoos. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of admin tools by Thibaut120094[edit]


User:Dr clave[edit]

This user's uploads appear to consist of self-made sheet music for copyrighted music. I don't have time to address this, but a mass deletion nomination may be necessary. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The files which were dated, had music titles and/or composers which were not able to be PD-old-70 (only two files); were nominated. There are still a significant number of musical files, but they appear to be generic beats for various emerging nation drums/ musical styles. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Bringing up an old discussion...[edit]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 38#Wikipediohacker is an old discussion from 2013, but several of the images posted therein have not been deleted. The licensing and attribution consist of the word "me" and were posted by a known indef banned user. Could someone please look at these images again? MSJapan (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There are only three photos left and those seem to be legit (for a change). --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of power by Poco a poco[edit]

Disruptive edits to prove a point[edit]

There is a problem with the File:Visa policy of Malaysia.png where one user is making disruptive edits in order to prove a point about another dispute.

There was a lack of consensus on the new color scheme for the map, we've uploaded several new versions, yet no agreement was reached so the file was reverted to the pre-dispute color scheme. This is commendable that the user Whisper of the heart unlike before accepted (although not honestly which is the reason behind this report) that the things need to be discussed on the talk page instead of engaging in an edit war like he would do before, but there is one problem. The dispute is quite obviously about colors.

Now that same user updated the corresponding article on Wikipedia (diff) (and vehemently defended it later on - (diff) in a dispute with another editor) which required a factual change here, coloring Taiwan as visa-free for 30 instead of 15 days. But now he is not allowing for this change to be implemented in the map here citing the dispute and saying how the file must be kept at a pre-dispute version. The dispute is entirely about colors, and the change to Taiwan on the map is not at dispute at all, as it was the same user Whisper of the heart who changed the corresponding article. I won't go deep into another matter as I don't have any evidence, but an IP user very similar to IPs which made edits of the same kind as Whisper of the heart immediately tagged the Wikipedia article because the map is incorrect - (diff) and (diff).

I believe all this is quite disruptive and childish, akin to the Wikipedia rule Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Either way, I've tried explaining this to the other user but he just reverted again so I gave up in order not to engage in a dispute and possible edit war. Can however something be done about this?--Twofortnights (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done File protected and reverted last two edits. BOTH of you made a big mess. I am really tempted to block both of you for a while. Next time don't revert several times but post here. Admins will take care of it. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Well we were testing several color schemes and it didn't work out. That's not a mess but trying to reach a consensus. There is no other way to do it but by uploading them here, correct me if I'm wrong but there is no "sandbox" here like on Wikipedia where one can test things out. If I am wrong then please tell me how to test various proposed versions without uploading them instead of threatening me after I sought your help. As for the conflict about Taiwan, that this report is about, I reverted once (16:43, 24 August 2015) so I don't see where the "Next time don't revert several times" comes from. After the other editor did not accept my rationale and reverted back I came here. I just don't know how else could I know the intentions of the other side if I don't first revert the edit and explain my position and wait to see whether he will accept that or not. If he reverts back then I report it to admins, simple as that, that's what I've done. I keep about three hundred articles under constant watch and update including corresponding maps, I receive constant praise, many barn stars, and even though conflicts and mistakes are inevitable (and I don't deny them) when so much work is done, I think overall my work is valuable and recognized as such by many other editors. If of course you think there is no reason to keep me around you may do as you find appropriate.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
No reason why you guys can't do your experiments using a new file that can be deleted when done. No problem. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletions of non-copyvio images[edit]

Herbythyme, an administrator who just got the tools back a couple of hours ago, has left a "final warning" on my talk page for alleged copyvios without discussion and without prior warning. He has also been deleting photos I retouched that were either already in Commons at their associated Wikipedia articles or were located at Flickr and had the correct licensing. I have asked him to reply and explain what's going on, but he has, so far, ignored my request at his talk page [2]. The only thing he's done to admit he had made an error was this with the edit summary: "-1 my mistake". After all the work I did that has now been removed from Commons as well as Wikipedia, I think I deserve an explanation beyond that edit summary as well as some discussion. Winkelvi (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You uploaded copyvios in the past. Maybe he sent you the warning in error. This looks like a communication problem. Per COM:DISPUTE you should ask him on his talkpage. Please assume good faith. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
As noted above in this report, I did contact him on his talk page. He has so far (seemingly) ignored it. And yes, I have uploaded copyvios in the past, but never knowingly, always out of ignorance of how the whole system worked. Still, a final warning is totally out of order without at least trying to discuss. Maybe not by procedure, but definitely as far as the same AGF you've asked me to extend, Steinsplitter. Winkelvi (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, You have quite a number of copyvios recently (see Special:DeletedContributions/Winkelvi), so this warning is warranted. Welcome Herbythyme! ;) Yann (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Fine, I have quite a few previously. As I explained above, that was before I totally understood how licensing worked. Now I know how it works. But really, just because an uploader has past copyvios then everything they upload that isn't a copyvio is immediately marked a copyvio? I've been asked to afford Herby AGF, however, where's the AGF coming my direction? If you think I'm upset, you're right, I am. I'm being flogged wrongly - when that kind of thing happens, I get upset. What would keep me from getting upset is having Herby respond to my comments on his talk page or here. I've done everything I should do in the form of checking licensing, adding the info needed when uploading, and it appears no one took the time to actually look at any of it. Instead, because I've had copyvios previously, four images I uploaded yesterday were just wiped out? Where's the quality control in that? Winkelvi (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Moved from AN --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Some files are indeed OK, so restored. For Herbythyme's defense, I should say that there was a Flickr review tag, but no direct link to Flickr. So it was confusing. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Tagging of File:Mitch Grassi with Pentatonix.jpg could have been easily avoided by using {{Extracted from}} Just FYI... --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
BTW: Are we talking about two files (Kidman and Grassi) just tagged as copyvios? OR am I missing any deleted files? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Complaint about Colin[edit]

Handling of IWL links[edit]

As I am not 100% sure about good practice concerning IWL links, I kindly ask for assistance here:
WhisperToMe is selectively adding IWL links to the categories, e.g. Category:Kian_Kok_Middle_School and here. In my understanding, we set up a new system to provide links to the appropriate articles in the sister projects and agreed that there should be no redundancy by adding links into the category page. Under systematic point of view, just selecting some of the languages is also not a logical action.
Some clarification would be welcomed. Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cccefalon: a few things to discuss:
These are more than "just links" - they are intentionally placed to make it easier for non-English speaking people to search for a topic. For example if a Chinese person writes 吉隆坡 she/he should expect to get the gallery page for Kuala Lumpur show up in the search results.
This edit effectively harms the ability of a Chinese-speaking person to look for content related to Kota Kinabalu. If the text "亚庇是第六东马来西亚的城市和沙巴的首都,于2000年升格为市。" is not present on the page, a Chinese speaker will not see the results.
"In my understanding, we set up a new system to provide links to the appropriate articles in the sister projects and agreed that there should be no redundancy by adding links into the category page." Please show me the relevant discussion page.
"Under systematic point of view, just selecting some of the languages is also not a logical action." - One may select as many or as few as he/she wants. I select the languages that are most relevant to a particular topic. English is always relevant to any topic, but certain subjects have relevant local languages in addition. One is always welcome to add more, but not to remove any. The more the merrier.
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe:, I exactly got your point. As I assumed your good faith, I better wanted to ask some opinions here. If I am wrong, go ahead with the links. Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Please see: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 for an example of fully multi-lingual Commons gallery page with the "header" language links/descriptions. I just linked it to the IWL, but I also feel that it's important to have the multi-lingual descriptions on the pages themselves. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)