Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:34, 22 July 2018

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-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	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 at COM:HMS.
Archives
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 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	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	99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 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

^{Translate this page}

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.

Actions of Giorgi Balakhadze

Please pay attention on actions of user:Giorgi Balakhadze. He continues to push his own position on the files of maps of Georgia (see. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag-map of the controlled territories of Georgia.svg etc.). This time, he puts the template {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} (for maps where the factual correctness or accuracy is disputed)

, although of course it's not there, but only a different view of the situation. So you can put this template on many maps of Russia, Abkhazia, Ukraine, Israel and other countries. --Insider (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard for me to understand for what you strive posting this case here. I've explained to you, you didn't respond. Also, as I see you try to mislead users, because as an argument you use 5-year old discussion (seriously?). And you call it "He continues to push"?! Is it a joke? Moreover I've added the note not only in the files about Georgia (just to mention).--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those maps Violate NPOV rules because they contain national and political boundaries that are disputed and not currently recognised under international law. For that reason they should not be used on Wikipedia projects where NPOV applies. Where is a problem? or you think that this map File:Flag-map of Georgia without Abkhazia and South Osetia.svg‎ is neutral and it is okay to use it in Wikipedia, for example in Georgia-stub templates?--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Insider and Giorgi Balakhadze: NPOV isn't a policy on Commons in the same way as Wikipedia. It only applies to descriptions, and not to the files themselves. That's why we have templates such as {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}}. So just move on. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: , maybe I misunderstood the purpose of the template {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}}? The template for maps where the factual correctness or accuracy is disputed. I think this is for maps that can be fixed. I am wrong? These maps can not be fixed. There is no mistake in them, there is only another point of view. If I am mistaken, then this template can be put on any maps with disputed territories and borders? For example: File:Global European Union.svg (disputed status of Kosovo?), File:Flag-map of Georgia.svg (disputed status of Abkhazia?), etc. Then the category will be clogged, for files with obvious errors: Category:Disputed maps. Is it more appropriate to use the {{De facto boundaries}} template and similar in such cases? --Insider (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Insider: {{De facto boundaries}} may be used, but some people will find the statement is not strong enough. In most cases, maps which are disputed can't be fixed. The disagreement is inherently part of the conflict, and it can take a very long time... Regards, Yann (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: : I correctly understood that I can place this template on all maps with similar cases (disputed boundaries)? It will be right? --Insider (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is fine for me. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then if I do not have other opinions, I will do it. --Insider (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Insider: that reads like you are asking permission to disrupt Commons to make a point: please don't do that. The template should be used in cases where the map and its correspondence to the filename and/or description is potentially problematic. Don't put it on files that are not actually disputed. Storkk (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think this is a clearly incorrect use of the template, whereas this one is possibly OK given there seems to be some disagreement on what the filename actually means. This usage is pretty clearly fine. Storkk (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Storkk: , thank you for your opinion! This is approximately what I'm talking about. And how do you consider the correctness of filling the "reason" field in this case ("This map violates NPOV rules because it contains national and political boundaries that are disputed and not currently recognised under international law. For that reason it should not be used on Wikipedia projects where NPOV applies.")? If it is only a name, what name would remove this template? Will the name File:Gruzie bez Abcházie a Jižní Osetie (proti EU).png fit? --Insider (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: : Still it would be very interesting opinion of the author of the template {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}}. --Insider (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We actually have policies when and in which situations files can be owerwritten, and when in which situations new versions must be uploaded as separate files. These policies must be followed by everybody.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter, here is the question of using the template. Is it suitable for these purposes? --Insider (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Insider: I believe I had imagined that the template would be used in cases when the map was unintentionally inaccurate, and correction was possible. I could also imagine in being used to indicate that the file description is misleading. It's intended to flag errors for discussion or requiring extensive explanation. Certainly, an image with a title like File:Flag map of Georgia, without Abkhazia and South Ossetia.png‎ is not inaccurate or misleading - that's what Georgia looks like (or would look like) without Abkhazia and South Ossetia. If the filename is more general, I would think an agreement could be made about the file description, possibly with a link to an alternate version. But the template is not especially useful in those cases, and its inclusion on many pages without a discussion page entry to address the issue is disruptive and unproductive. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion! That's what I'm talking about. --Insider (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logos of Italian political parties tagged as screenshots of free software

Ale-49 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
Andruamudadu (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

These users have been uploading logos of Italian political parties tagged as screenshots of free software, just like Aless56. See also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aless56. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 02:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed per SPI and some loud quacking. De728631 (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@De728631: Thank you. I guess the master's behavior is too old? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the account hasn't been active for half a year now so let's leave it at that. Once it gets reactivated we can still block it. De728631 (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:בר-כח

בר-כח (talk · contribs) Mass COM:LL from https://www.flickr.com/photos/142978182@N03/ from an user already blocked. Files are mostly out of SCOPE and shall be nuked. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B dash

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User: B dash (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Filing inappropriate vandalism report, and exercising censorship.

DexterPointy (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Observation 1: Filing inappropriate vandalism report.
Ref.: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Vandalism#DexterPointy
"B dash" has been on Wikimedia for over 4 years, and can thus hardly be assumed ignorant about what vandalism is.
Why "B dash" filed such a report, is a bit of a mystery, but it could be an attempt to eliminate users critical of Donald Trump.

Observation 2: Exercising censorship.
Look at these two revisions:
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Trump_Baby_Balloon.jpg&oldid=311336889
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Trump_Baby_Balloon.jpg&oldid=311428268
User "B dash" removes (censors out) everything written by DexterPointy, without any notification to DexterPointy (me).
The presently most recent revision, is
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Trump_Baby_Balloon.jpg&oldid=311444187
Still nothing actually written by DexterPointy (me) there, and "B dash" is not found anywhere in content.
If it hadn't been for the revision trace (feature of the platform), then user "B dash" would have gotten away with the illegitimate censorship.
Again, "B dash" has been on Wikimedia for over 4 years, and can thus hardly be assumed ignorant about how things work.

-- DexterPointy (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the deleted contributions was: «who the fuck was ever the brain dead moron, whom decided that a platform intended for ordinary common people should allow identical filenames, only differing in casing. (Don't answer that, I could be tempted to commit a crime)». This should not be removed from the discussion, on principle, but who ever talks like this needs to be blocked till they grow up. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding observation 1, I'll advise everyone to use the correct noticeboards: Vandalism for blatant and intentional things such as page blanking, spamming, or overwriting random images with pornography. "Blocks and protections" can be used to report routine issues where blocks and protections are needed, such as persistent copyright violators. "User problems" is generally used when discussion is required rather than simply blocking.

Regarding observation 2, it appears that B dash did not remove your comments, but rather moved them to a different deletion request. There are three similarly named DRs now, and it's confusing. (DR/File:Trump Baby Balloon.jpg, DR/File:Trump baby balloon.jpg, and DR/File:Trump baby balloon.png. I don't think any harm or censorship was intended. I recommend copying your comments to all three DRs if they're relevant and appropriate to the discussion. Guanaco (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so a failed cleanup attempt, opaque splitting and moving, without any obvious trace or notification, and that's "oh sorry". This is too inane for me to spend more time on, I'll just stay away from WikiMedia. --DexterPointy (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Splitting the DR is 3 was not a good idea. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to be done here from administrators. Good faith, if misguided, edits. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Advice?

Could an admin please take a look at this, this and this and offer me some advice. I'm disappointed by the complete lack of cross-wiki coordination.

I've also posted the above at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Advice? nagualdesign 04:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, can you please summarize the problem you have with that user here on Commons? Please cite specific instances. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An admin already started attending it; so I see no need of another discussion here. J e e 07:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have defended Winkelvi out of several blocks on en-wp and helped prevent him from being indef blocked, so hopefully he'll listen to me. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Briliant Ritchie33. I think this thread should be closed. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 12:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fanghong

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

All criteria of Commons:Administrators/De-adminship#De-adminship process as a result of abuse of power are met and there is unanimous support for desysop of User:Fanghong. As there is no further feedback from them, starting a desysop request appears reasonable. --Krd 18:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Fanghong is repeatedly abusing their admin buttons, but also seems to have no clue at all about copyright and seems unwilling/unable to gain sufficient understanding on copyright.

29 april I nominated several of their problematic uploads for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Liaoning.png and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Grain coupons of China. Although they have editted here when the DRs were open, they did not comment to the DRs.
15 juni Srittau closed both DRs as delete.
25 juni Fanghong undeleted the files with as much rationale as "used". This is a plural offence. Not only did they wheelwar with closing admin, they did so in order to restore their own copyvio uploads. The next day I left a message at their user talk page.
29 juni Fanghong filed an UDR for the files, here and here. The UDRs was commented on by Guanaco and myself and subsequently closed as not done by Yann.
16 july Fanghong undeleted the files again. This time I left a clear warning at their user talk page.
17 july Fanghong decided to ignore the UDR outcome of two weeks ago and to repeat the UDRs. It's clear from these new UDRs that they either completely fail to understand or wilfully ignore the previous DRs and UDR discussions.

So now we have and admin who has no clue about copyright and who uses their buttons to wheelwar in order to protect their own copyvio uploads. I think we have a serious problem here. Jcb (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is very concerning, indeed. While it is possible that these files can be kept (if the base map is indeed self created, or if the grain coupons are government work), but none of that was mentioned in the DR or UDR. Wheel warring instead is absolutely unacceptable. I'd support a desysop at this poimt. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like an answer from Fanghong. And there may be a language issue. Could someone speaking Chinese talk to s/he? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe @Zhuyifei1999: or @Jianhui67: ? Jcb (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly never heard of this admin. Anyways agreed they should resign. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a frequent user in coms and not seen UDR close reasons on time thought have to up again and make a mistake. sorry!--Fanghong (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have the impression that you have any understanding of our processes. If it's so difficult for you to understand what's going on here, maybe you should voluntarily resign as an admin, regardless the outcome of this discussion. Jcb (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fanghong: Please enable "Show notifications from other wikis" in your Global Preferences, heed those notifications, do not wheel war, and do not remove others' legitimate content. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't believe what I'm seeing here, Fanghong. Could you please resign as an admin? T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 12:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to second T Cell's comment. I'm all for forgiving mistakes and all but this cannot be forgiven. Natuur12 (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to see Fanghong’s RfA discussion. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin: Commons:Requests and votes/Fanghong. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile I found it too, thanks. Looks like we can have all kinds of admins here, provided they avoid Pricassos and aren’t named Fæ. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

or Jeff G. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: Tuvalkin doesn't support you, so this comment seems a bit out of place. Fanghong was promoted in 2005 for translation purposes. Maybe 13 years ago there was no specific file mover right? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Natuur12. Extremely unprofessional. Desysop them asap, please. --A.Savin 16:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Natuur12, A.Savin, etc. This is concerning. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with T Cell's et al, You never ever undelete something an admin has deleted and this is coming from someone who isn't even an admin!, This is highly concerning and IMHO a desysop is in order. –Davey2010^Talk 18:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

person should be given the chance to explain. One of the reasoms saying the"sysetm was abolished in china". Perhaps this could be explained and satisfy the demands of critics. 165.230.225.51 22:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry bud but as an administrator there are some things you just don't do ..... No amount of excuses or apologies will fix this, Truth be told he should never have been made an admin in the first place then again Commons/Projects were very different in 2005, You were handed the mop on a plate pretty much. –Davey2010^Talk 03:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel warring is a bright-line. Period. Any sysop that uses their tools in such a manner does not deserve to have them. Fanghong, I echo the above individuals requests. Please resign. --Majora (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the majority of people above. Multiple files were undeleted 3 times out of process, completely ignoring the result of the undeletion discussions. If you weren't an admin and re-uploaded instead of undeleting, you would currently be blocked for disruption/re-uploading deleted material. Please resign. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This votes after votes is silly to me and amount to waste of volunteers time. Is it not high time we have Commons:Arbitration Committee? Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think we need an ArbCom on commons. Do it if you want but what we have is fine. What I do think is silly is since it is apparent Fanghong is not going to voluntarily hand in his tools; if we need to vote before a desyop procedure we shouldn't even more users stating the obvious before a vote. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you think we don't need an ArbCom on Commons? T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because layers of bureaucracy tend not to solve layers of bureaucracy. Just my 2 cents. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So let's have a vote. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

CPortero (WMF)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Nothing of concern. (And Yes, (WMF) in username is blacklisted that only certain users can create them.) — regards, Revi 20:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The activity of CPortero (WMF) (talk · contribs) come under my radar due to unexplainable addition of a file to Category:JP letter combinations. Is this a sanctionned use of "(WMF)" in one’s user name? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin: I notified them for you. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin: She seems to be a new hire. She was welcomed yesterday by BWolff (WMF) at m:User talk:CPortero (WMF), and BWolff (WMF) is legitimate. Guanaco (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) James Alexander confirmed via IRC that this a new staffer. Account is legitimate so no action needed. Natuur12 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. CPortero is a new product manager in the security department. Yesterday we were talking about how MediaWiki works (She is new to our sites and our software) and I suggested that she try and create a userpage on meta as a first step to learn how MediaWiki works. I suspect the reason she uploaded a photo of herself is to use on her to be created userpage. The extra category was presumably accidental, as she has never used upload wizard before. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why the bleep are you hiring people who have no clue about the project?! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One could be highly knowledgeable within online security without needing to know about the projects. The WMF is a sepeare organization, Commons (etc.) are projecs by that organization. One should not need to know everything about the projects the organization maintains, as long as you can perfor the duty you've been hired for. So, please do not scare away the WMF's newest staffers. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, as said, no action required. I am glad it was not username abuse. (I suppose it is blacklisted to include "WMF" in a user name, yes?) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding, Tuvalkin. @CPortero (WMF): , you are welcome to Wikimedia Commons. Our community members are friendly and they are people who really deeply care. If you need help, feel free to ask me or anyone. You can also ask at COM:VP. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Feyzi mahsa (talk · contribs)

Nearly all the uploads of the user had been violations of Copyright. I think the case needs intervention by the admins. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Given the user a final warning. Please ping me or another admin if any more issues arise. Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon Kolbert: Thanks for the response. Sure...--Mhhossein ^talk 15:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Akisuto Zeniko

Akisuto Zeniko (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Repeated upload of bad files and files without proof of a free license. Was given a final warning about uploading problematic images a long time ago (2016) but it doesn't appear that anyone ever acted upon the warning. --Majora (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for 3 months. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias and no source maps showing false and misleading information on German Wikipedia

I'd like to raise an issue regarding, the following three maps (all related to each other) Verbreitungsgebiet der deutschen Sprache.PNG [1] (original map) upoladed by an editor who was blocked due to, quote "POV from doubtful sources, playing down Nazism. Harms Wikipedia (POV aus zweifelhaften Quellen, Verharmlosung des Nationalsozialismus. Schadet der Wikipedia)." Also, the next two maps were based on the first map and cite it as the only reference source File:German standard varieties.png [2], File:Sprachvarietäten Deutsch.png [3]. The three maps appear on 70 Wikipedia pages in different languages.

This is an issue regarding possible violations of neutrality and bias exhibited by a couple of editors and admins that took place when I made corrections to the maps, which showed areas of alleged German speaking minorities in contemporary Eastern Europe. The corrections I made were based on reliable reference sources cited in Wikipedia articles on this topic. Currently, the original map has no verifiable reference sources to back any up the claims it presents, and shows German speaking minorities in places such as Poland, Czech Rep. and Slovakia where there is none (backed up by references such as the Polish Government census, etc.). I'm concerned that this misrepresentation of facts peddles to German nationalist claims in Eastern Europe, and Wikipedia is being used to spread misinformation, depicting alleged German minorities in areas and cities where they simply do not exist.

This information can be verified easily by accessing Wikipedia articles on this topic and reviewing the reference citations which disprove the false claims the maps currently presents:

German minority in Poland [4]
Carpathian Germans [5]
Germans in the Czech Republic [6]

Also, I'm concerned by the behavior of some of the admins form the German Wikipedia (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Verbreitungsgebiet der deutschen Sprache.PNG), who do acknowledge that the map peddels questionable information, however ignore my request to just upload a corrected version of the map (which is supported by other editors on the image Talk Page), and blocked the upload option. Also, one of the admins took the discussion away from the image Talk Page to a German Wikipedia forum de:Diskussion:Ostgebiete des Deutschen Reiches, in which I can't contribute to since I don't speak German. Unfortunately, this comes across as potential bias, which in effect stifled any action to correct the highly controversial and unsourced claims made by the three maps, and hits at Wikipedia's credibility, where bad players upload false or un-true information, which then spreads across many articles in different languages. --E-960 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about your forum shopping. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 18:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff G., it's not forum shopping, I have objections to how my request is being handled and how I'm being treated by editors and admins form the German Wikipedia project. Maps get updated all the time, to block that option and throw up technicalities to justify it, is highly questionable. Also, why was the discussion about the map diverted form the English language Talk Page of the image to a German Wikipedia form. I'm the user that raised this issue and in effect now was removed form the debate (I don't speak German). That's bias... so I don't appreciate these red-harring statements accusing me of "forum shopping", this is a legitimate issue which I would like other admins not just form the German Wikipedia to have a look at. --E-960 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a general problem with maps and DE Wiki users. Often e.g. false own work claims on obvious DW, without disclosing the source of the base map, and then canvassing in DE Wiki to get a lot of German keep votes to a DR. (example) - Jcb (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 198: / Line 198: @@
 :I am concerned about your forum shopping. &nbsp; — <span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G. ツ]]</span><small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small> 18:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 ::[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]], it's not forum shopping, I have objections to how my request is being handled and how I'm being treated by editors and admins form the German Wikipedia project. Maps get updated all the time, to block that option and throw up technicalities to justify it, is highly questionable. '''Also, why was the discussion about the map diverted form the English language Talk Page of the image to a German Wikipedia form. I'm the user that raised this issue and in effect now was removed form the debate (I don't speak German).''' That's bias... so I don't appreciate these red-harring statements accusing me of "forum shopping", this is a legitimate issue which I would like other admins not just form the German Wikipedia to have a look at. --[[User:E-960|E-960]] ([[User talk:E-960|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
+There is a general problem with maps and DE Wiki users. Often e.g. false own work claims on obvious [[COM:DW|DW]], without disclosing the source of the base map, and then canvassing in DE Wiki to get a lot of German keep votes to a DR. ([[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tolk in SL.PNG|example]]) - [[User:Jcb|Jcb]] ([[User talk:Jcb|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)