Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI

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 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
122, 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
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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.
  • 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.

Review on F2C ban

May I ask for a review on Special:AbuseFilter/208. I do not misuse {{Duplicate}} (tagging deletion of the existing files but not the new one) since then, and I'm not repeating the old problems. It is not necessary to unban me at this point, but at least a time on an unban/another review should be given. It is just like an endless waiting. I hope I can get a response like Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 88#Editing restriction review. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support This is a matter of trust. A1Cafel have made some mistakes and the question is if we trust that the lesson is learned. I do not think it makes much difference if the ban is lifted now or in 3 months so personally I think that we might as well find out now if A1Cafel will follow the advices/guides or not. So I support to remove AbuseFilter and if A1Cafel makes no more mistakes then we all win and if the old problems return then it will only take 1 minute to reactivate the filter. --MGA73 (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why you felt you needed to raise this. 1) Limit of 10 images per day at DR and no nominating of images for deletion outside of DR, until 23:59, December 31, 2020 (UTC). 2) No formal restrictions afterwards, but any clearly incorrect speedy tagging (Speedydelete, Nld, Nsd, Npd, etc.) may be grounds for a block without further warning. reads as at the end of this month there are no restrictions. You may wish to refine the last part, but as that's not a "formal" process, you could also just leave it on the presumption that you are not planning to do something terrible, and explainable mistakes would never lead to a block that would stick. Of course, I may misunderstand the request, as the title does not match the "Editing restriction" discussed. --Fæ (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would only venture to raise issue on procedural grounds. I don't know that there is any basis in policy for an administrator to unilaterally impose a tailored restriction for a user without clear and particular community consensus. GMGtalk 23:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment As the blocking admin, I'm fine with whatever consensus this discussion results in. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns related to edit restriction on nominating deletion
Again, the only thing I would have to add is that procedurally, there does not appear to be a clear community consensus for enacting a novel sanction, which under local policy, only the community can enact. We have no ArbCom. By all accounts the community here doesn't want one, and there is no allowance for enacting novel sanctions at the discretion of individual administrators, as there is in the English Wikipedia discretionary sanctions system.
I would overturn the restriction on procedural grounds, with no prejudice toward the sanctions being reinstated if the community finds a consensus to do so. No comment as to whether the community should empower administrators to enact such novel sanction, only that the community hasn't, and administrators serve at the behest of the community. GMGtalk 14:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nicojaba2781

Nicojaba2781 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This editor has used a couple accounts (Nicojaba2780 and Nicojaba2781) to ask me incessantly to make some route marker signs for Chile. I created a couple files on December 23 and since then this user has been bothering me to make more.[1] I asked them to not be pushy or I would not make any more files.[2]. That did not happen and I told them I would not make any more files for them, but that did not stop them from asking. After receiving eight emails this morning because of talk page edits, all from this user, I asked on their talk page to stop.[3] Since then I have received two more talk page emails.

I do not necessarily care what punishment, if any, is meted out by admins. I just want this user to leave me alone. –Fredddie™ 19:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Half done Sock blocked indef'ed. Master remains unblocked as it hasn't edited since 24 December 2020. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This user came back with a new sock Nicobarra1234. I put in a case at COM:SPI, but I guess they don't deal with quacking ducks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredddie (talk • contribs)

Hi, can anyone deal with this user? This is astounding. --Rschen7754 19:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rk2515

Rk2515 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user repeatedly re-uploaded the deleted file. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also COM:AN#Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. No activity since you warned him/her. All copyvios are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ryugold

Ryugold (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked Ryugold for a week. All his uploads are deleted by others. Taivo (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Users:Smooth O---François-Ávila

François-Ávila (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  removes "no permission" and "copyvio" tags from clearly copyrighted images and images without source and permission (example). In order to avoid edit war, someone should react to this. --Smooth O (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct. User has attempted to remove files that meet Wikipedia's standards, possibly in an attempt to hinder my work. Files are either copies of paintings held in a museum; covers of books a hundred years old, or files already uploaded on Wikipedia in other languages'. I agree in that someone should react to this, take a careful look at the matter, and at the user's activities.--François-Ávila (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Editost

Editost (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:ShkoDev

ShkoDev (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, FitIndia. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ricardalovesmonuments

This user Ricardalovesmonuments (talk · contribs) is uploading non-free images on Commons. Instead of caring about right licencing and getting permissions, she is insulting me. I'm reporting them, because I don't see any sense of explaining to Ricardalovesmonuments. User is old and experienced enough, to know how it works. Now I've read this message in German.

"Irgendwie scheint etwas mit dir nicht zu stimmen"
Translation: Something seems to be wrong with you
At least the user writes "Verachtungsvoll" which means translated Disregard.

Thats obviously an offens, intimidation and harassment by Ricardalovesmonuments. Pan Tau (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • You've given no examples of any such images and not linked to any places where there is a comprehensible dispute about licensing between the two of you. Instead you're just going straight for the ad hominem. Nor have you, as you are required to do, notified the other editor. As such, this should be closed as pointless.
The only real example I can see is this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karte der Gemeinde- und Ortsteile der Stadt Kempten (Allgäu).jpg, where your deletion request was closed by an independent editor as having no valid reason for deletion. There's also File:Umgebungskarte Kempten 1910.jpg, which you seemingly tagged as "no licence". Such a tag should (rather obviously) only be used when there is clearly no licence - not if you dispute the details of some licence, where you should raise a deletion discussion instead, so that we can discuss the merits of such fine details. A competent admin should know this and not delete a speedy request in such circumstances. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a report about the abusive behavior of Ricardalovesmonuments, arguing about my mental health/soundness of mind. I don't take responsibilty to explain experienced users how to use licenses properly (here another example). Your response is more then pointless. Pan Tau (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DISMEYCARTOON207

DISMEYCARTOON207 (talk · contribs)

Childish vandal. Indef block and revert / delete created pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sheetalkumari8101995

Sheetalkumari8101995 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

See File:Karamjeet Madonna Dancing 01.jpg's File usage on other wikis. Cross wiki abuse on at-least 13 wikis. I don't know how to report this mess on those wikis. Thanks -- Eatcha (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marcolacson

Marcolacson (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks Gbawden (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Admiral Farmer

Admiral Farmer (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emadadden

Emadadden (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week. This user could use some help understanding what licenses are free Gbawden (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbawden Here it says "a week", but in the block log it says "1 day". Which is correct? --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yuraily Lic: Finger trouble Gbawden (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Slafaihdrmyt3

Slafaihdrmyt3 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:بتول باسم المصاروة

بتول باسم المصاروة (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Douurunzhu

Hello, I'm not sure what the correct procedure for this report is, but I've come across uploads by Douurunzhu which are clear copyright violations and tagged them as such. (Some that were less clear-cut I nominated for deletion discussion.) I was not the first to notice these[4], but Douurunzhu removes speedy notices [5][6][7][8] and deletion notices[9] without further action. It seems sub-optimal to punt them all to deletion discussions which are half a year backlogged, since they're obvious copyright violations, so I felt coming here would be the best option. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my apologize for these problems. I have done relicensing as hard as i could. But looks like i have not yet getting used to Wikimedia Commons Upload system. So that's why i am prone to copyvio like these. So i hope you understand, and may could guide me to correct it. The administrator can give me any sanction that available because this is truely my own fault. So i take the responsibility. Thank you very much for reminding me. Douurunzhu 09:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Images not created by the author cannot simply be relicensed, they can only be uploaded to Commons if they already have a specific licence. More information is available at Commons:Licensing. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I warned the user. Taivo (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Douurunzhu: Please review Commons:Signatures#Images in signature.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Already Changed it, Thank you. Douurunzhu 13:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aigerim Kayupova

Aigerim Kayupova (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked her for a month. Her last remaining uploads have all "source – from Google, author – Google", showing, that she does not understand copyright at all. Taivo (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Terryanna

Terryanna (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) multible copyviolations Oesterreicher12 (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked her for a week. Taivo (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Agustin Sepulveda Venegas 2004 Fan

Agustin Sepulveda Venegas 2004 Fan (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvios after last warning. This user has re-uploaded the deleted file. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done blocked for 3 days Gbawden (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Delicje

Delicje (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Turan Etibaroğlu

Turan Etibaroğlu (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, De728631. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krok6kola

Krok6kola (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Hello, I blocked the aforementioned user for two weeks for repeated COM:OVERCAT violations (e.g. 1 and 2) from editing the Category and File namespace. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ridiculous and undeserved block. Nor is disagreeing with A. Savin ever reason to block. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the disagreement with A.Savin (haven't looked into the issue), but the cited edits are unnecessary over categorization and therefore the account has been blocked. He has been warned regarding the issue on AN/U a while ago here by @Ymblanter: --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The two edits you cite are both justifiable and constructive edits. One might well disagree with them, one might discuss them further, but these are not (emphatically so) any sort of vandalism or justifying of a block. OVERCAT is a vague guiding principle, with a huge number of exclusions to it. It is a poor editor who applies it dogmatically and simplistically. A. Savin is also one of the most abrasive and aggressive editors on Commons. There should never be blocks issued at their behest. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know you, so why are you insulting me? COM:NPA -- never heard of? --A.Savin 18:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear you don't know me. I certainly know you, you're at the core of nearly every dispute on Commons. If you weren't the cause, you wade in anyway. And while you're about it, don't template the regulars. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such rule named "Don't template the regulars" on Commons. --A.Savin 19:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OVERCAT is not a rigid rule either, yet you've just had an editor blocked for two weeks for a trivial disagreement over it.
We do however have a very rigid rule against edit-warring, and this certainly applies to hostile edits on another's user_talk: page.[10][11] If an editor who you don't even know complains of your aggressive behaviour towards other editors, it might not be a good idea to respond in exactly that manner. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is unacceptable, but far from surprising as your usual level of attack on other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've read this? Okay. Why then did you lie? --A.Savin 22:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steinsplitter: How did those two edits you list as evidence of repeated COM:OVERCAT violations come to your attention? I am curious as I have worked in that area a lot over time and never even seen your name before. Have we had some interaction recently that I am unaware of? Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: @Steinsplitter: "He has been warned" refers to whom? Krok6kola? - Jmabel ! talk 17:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (as a user not as an admin: I have had some off-wiki interaction with Krok6kola that probably means I should not act as an admin in this matter.) And I think A.Savin's remarks on this very thread are more worthy of a block than anything Krok6kola has done. Not that I particularly wish to see either blocked. And I sincerely hope A.Savin does not now respond with a full-frontal attack on me, as happened to Andy above. - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've really no clue if you consider this a "full-frontal attack" on you; but speaking of your claim that my remarks "are more worthy of a block than anything Krok6kola has done" (??) and "as happened to Andy above", do you really consider the above remarks by "Andy" ("[A.Savin] is a poor editor who applies it dogmatically and simplistically. A. Savin is also one of the most abrasive and aggressive editors on Commons. There should never be blocks issued at their behest [...] [He is] at the core of nearly every dispute on Commons." + the obviously false claim that it was me who blocked Krok6kola and that Krok6kola was blocked for two weeks) actually not even close to be worthy of a block? --A.Savin 18:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • [after edit conflict] @A.Savin: } I was not commenting on Andy's remarks, I was commenting on your tone. You are an admin. To the best of my knowledge, Andy is not and never has been. As such, you are supposed to be getting things back on track, not taking them further off the rails by taking every bit of bait anyone puts in your path. It has increasingly made me wonder whether you have the temperament for the role, and I would really like to see you give that some thought, either about the way you interact here or whether perhaps you should at least take a hiatus from being an admin here. And, yes, I guess I am making this about you on a discussion that was supposed to be about Krok6kola, for which I apologize. I promise this is the last thing I will say about your conduct on this thread. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you didn't know this so far Jmabel, but let me kindly remind you: Admins are users as all others. Admins have the same rights (apart from a few more technical rights) and duties. Admins have to respect the same guidelines. Admins are unpaid volunteers too. Admins are humans too, means they are subject to human rights and all other laws too. Admins also may feel distress or even get ill if they are insulted or harassed, and do not have a special obligation to tolerate insults in general. Thanks. --A.Savin 18:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I removed the block for now because there is no clear consensus and the issue seems to be complicated, however the COM:OVERCAT issue remains and i encourage the user in question to follow due process when categorizing images. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think in the future, someone needs to explain the actual overcategorization violation. I see a new category created and what seems to be articles added to it which haven't been reverted. I have no opinion but it seems like the same (I'd say three?) users show up in arguments constantly so something more may need to be done. Is the problem the creation of the category or the things put into the category? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The category thing is a issue, but if the users is moor careful in future when categorizing file, then it is fine. Regarding the drama, this likely requires some kind of mediation and seems to be complicated. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steinsplitter: Where was I warned? This petered out with one  Support by the filer, and two  Opposes. I have received no warnings beyond the 5 vandalism warnings listed on my unblock request. (These warning were for edits that were clearly not vandalism) Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do you care about warnings? Do you know what the issue is and were you in the right or in the wrong? If you think you were right, then can you see what the different of opinion and can you all be adults and explain it to each other? The goal should be to figure out the best way forward, not play games about whether you have had the "right" number of prior warnings about the matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikiloverdeepak

Wikiloverdeepak (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvio after warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:1989

An appropriate edit summary? [12] --A.Savin 16:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you judge this one too? 1989 (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate. Can't we all just get along?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate. Can't we all just get along?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whataboutism is always an extremely weak argument for discussion, 1989. But if you really feel the need to compare the current issue to the situation some months ago, you would (if your motivation would be fair and constructive) at least agree that I never edit-warred on your own talk page to push a comment there against your will. --A.Savin 16:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If someone on this project writes "Leave me alone", leave them alone. If you ignore that, it's bullying and a blanking with an edit comment of "fuck off" can be taken as a healthy one from someone who feels targeted or hounded. If you disagree, do as suggested and go to WMF T&S, they'll tell you that they are happy to consider a global ban of any account with a history of bullying, with no special treatment of those with functionary roles. It may even help them out by providing case studies for the forthcoming actioning of the UCoC. And no, we do not "all just get along", if someone asks you to leave them alone, they are not the aggressor, and you should not have to be asked again, or again, or again.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again. Is "Fuck off" an appropriate edit summary? I didn't insult 1989 on their talkpage, nor did I edit-war, nor hound them. I'm perfectly fine with leaving them alone. I simply don't need them. Since their desysop, I had no interaction for several months. They are seeking conflict with me, not the other way around. 1989 in fact doesn't care about Krok6kola. They are no friends or something, not a single one time 1989 wrote anything on K.'s talk page. The only reason why 1989 is always advocating K., no matter what problem with their edits is there, is seeking conflict with me. They obviously think that K. would be kind of a "red cloth" for me (which is bullshit of course). Is this all really normal? --A.Savin 17:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speaking of desysop, given this persons performance against me and other users, I would gladly support a desysop, probably a ban too. The fact that my vote actually affected them so much they started hounding me by sarcastically welcomed me back and trolling me plus added this on their userpage is very unbecoming of an administrator. 1989 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's impressive how consistently you are ignoring any constructive argument just a small bit beyond of black and white. Maybe you should apply as judge in the Navalny's trial; they will be happy about such a perfect candidate for that. --A.Savin 18:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to be clear, "fuck off" is perfectly acceptable as an edit comment to someone who refuses to leave you alone after you have asked extremely clearly and unambiguously "leave me alone".
You are using this noticeboard to deliberately provoke and harass another user. There is no sysop action being requested here, this is now hounding. Please consider this thread closed. --Fæ (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"fuck off" is perfectly acceptable? Well, OK. --A.Savin 18:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The self-victimhood by comparing your chosen "enemy" as an ally of Putin is disgusting. You are harassing 1989. This is not acceptable from anyone, especially someone trusted with sysop rights. Please consider resigning the tools and the wisdom of not making any further replies to this thread, but taking the time to review your actions. --Fæ (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban between A.Savin and 1989

As an uninvolved editor, I would like to propose an indefinite interaction ban between User:A.Savin and User:1989. I don't think blocking them would solve the issue, but an interaction ban most probably does so. If they can't leave each other alone voluntarily, the community should make them keep their distances from each other.

Here is a timeline of the recent interactions:

  • A.Savin needlessly and sarcastically says welcome back to 1989: "Welcome back, and I'm glad for you to get your usual honeypot again."
  • 1989 says that A.Savin has a "bitter soul"[13] and asks them to leave them alone.
  • Despite the implications that they should leave each other alone, 1989 replies to A.Savin's comment and makes a reference to them using "Savin", not A.Savin who are different users [14]
  • A.Savin starts a new thread at 1989's talk page and calls their behaviour aggressive and harassment and informs that the other party may be reported to the WMF T&S [15]
  • 1989 removes the thread with a "f* off" edit summary[16]
  • A.Savin shows that they think that anybody commenting about Krok6kola is in fact "seeking conflict with" them. They also use the word bulsh*. [17]

It should also be noted that about 5-6 months ago, 1989 blocked A.Savin which was lifted later and that event led in 1989's de-sysop vote.

Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:

  • edit each other's user and user talk pages;
  • reply to each other in discussions;
  • make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Commons, directly or indirectly;
  • undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
  • use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.

However, they are allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
  •  Support Noting that forcing an interaction ban means the community lacks necessary trust in the party that is a sysop. Just collapsed interactions above, which re-enforces the rationale that this interaction ban is justified. --Fæ (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @4nn1l2: Thanks for taking the time. But let me say that I really didn't ever have that much to do with 1989, apart from the story with their block of mine and following desysop. This was five or four months ago or so, and since than I didn't have any interaction for a long time. 1989 just doesn't interest me. By now I was tending to think that an IB is necessary for a very much more intensive interaction. I'm not even sure we already had examples here. In any event, an IB between me and Krok6kola probably would be much more logical, even though I'm still convinced that in most of our interactions I was fixed edits by Krok6kola in accordance with the guidelines such as COM:Categories. --A.Savin 18:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As an observer, I think the interaction between you and 1989 is unhealthy enough (saying f word, sh*, making personal attacks [bitter soul], accusing the other party of harassment, taunting, resorting to the intervention of WMF T&S, etc) and there is no indication that this won't get worse. Maybe this IB makes you (and even Krok6kola) think about your interactions from now on. I know that you and Krok6kola have dispute over content, but at least that dispute has not fallen down to the level of incivility, personal attacks, and harassment claims, as far as I know. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK thanks --A.Savin 19:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Proposing a two-way interaction ban is ridiculous. You do realize this whole thing started was because the other person couldn't resist talking shit when I said nothing to them. I'd support a one-way interaction ban, but not this. No way. 1989 (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that they started the current incident does not excuse you for making personal attacks [bitter soul] and telling f words to other users. The fact that you are referring to the other party's writings as "talking sh*" is another indication that a 2-way interaction ban is needed. It is really not prudent to continue using vulgar words in this thread. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely right. When a bully starts hounding you for no reason whatsoever, just ignore them otherwise I'll be in trouble too, right? That's how this is gonna go? 1989 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tired to say over and over again that this is highly unjust and unfair, but at least try to think a tiny little bit rationally, 1989. What on Earth might be a reason for myself to start "hounding you for no reason whatsoever"? And this, after you have lost your admin bit anyway and I didn't have any interaction with you for the following months. By the way. Your apology is worth exactly nothing, I guess? --A.Savin 22:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a tone-deaf reply and yet I'm going to be punished with them... Are you serious? 1989 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you might have missed that I would agree on a voluntarily two-way IB (see straight below). So, it's your turn now to agree; no idea who is actually punished here (blocks, by the way, are not punitive too). --A.Savin 22:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear. From my understanding, a voluntary IB is a true IB, which has all the terms of IB and their breach is subject to a block. The difference is, it's an agreement, because both sides have to agree that any further interaction is counter-productive for the time being. --A.Savin 22:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, 1989. From my perspective you are not innocent here. After you tell them to stay away from you, it is you who approaches them[18]. It is you who uses f word and sh* against them. Your attitude is as hostile as theirs. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Would agree on a voluntarily two-way IB. --A.Savin 21:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Two-way interaction ban, the bad blood between A.Savin and 1989 has gone on long enough and the sniping each other has gotten to the point that the community has to act in an attempt to remove the interaction that is clearly not healthy. Bidgee (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The goal is to reduce friction here and if two people get on each other's nerves, they need to figure out something else to do with the millions of things that can be done here. You can't tell me it's impossible to not annoy each other. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose from the little I saw I think A. Savin is being intentionally antagonistic towards 1989 and the sarcastic, veiled threats are inappropriate. In can imagine that 1989 feels hounded by A. Savin and I don't blame him for telling him to F off. Being hounded and bullied is no fun Gbawden (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gbawden: What is the alternative or your suggestion/solution? 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Ibans are too flawed to ever be much use. They have two typical failings, and I think both would be a risk here. Firstly they are a symmetrical response to an asymmetric problem. We have two Ibans under discussion here already, and what's the common factor? I don't see any calls for Ibans between Krok6kola and 1989 - why should they be tarred with such a punitive measure? Secondly, the effectiveness of an Iban relies on its observation by those named, and by their willingness to breach it and their influence in order to do so without further redress. A. Savin is an admin and so has considerable power and status over mere editors. They can flauntflout an Iban (I have no faith that they won't) and if 1989 were to even complain of that, 1989 would then be at risk of blocks etc. for having breached that Iban. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andy Dingley: I can't understand your second point. How can one flaunt being ibanned? Being banned is negative in nature. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban proposal between Krok6kola and A.Savin

@4nn1l2: an IB between me (Krok6kola) and A.Savin is a great idea.

This would prevent the harassing vandalism templates and threats to block me from him (5 in the last six months - see my unblock request at the bottom of my talk page for list of vandalism and threats to block templates from A.Savin), and other bad interactions:

e.g.deleting my categories as I'm creating them

Leading to attempts to block me as just happened above on this page where I was unjustly blocked without ever received any warnings and then unblocked so now I have a block record

and another examplepreviously with help from Jeff G that was used to justify the block mentioned above

A.Savin never posts constructively on my talk page anyway, and he never answers questions by me on his e.g[19], so there would be no loss from an IB there.

A.Savin is the only support for blocking me. He has been found to be too "involved" to do so himself.

 Support an IB between Krok6kola and A.Savin (from the editor formerly known as Kalbbes) Krok6kola (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Krok6kola: Don't you mean User:Kalbbes?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Opps! Fixed. Thank you. Krok6kola (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment If both of you agree with an IBAN, just avoid each other voluntarily. It is not necessary to make it official. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @A.Savin: Will you support this? It would relieve us both and allow peace between us. Each could lose the anger over the other. Krok6kola (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone goes ahead and promises to be monitoring your categorization edits on daily basis and fix all the mess you are producing (over-cat, creating duplicated categories, blanking of pages etc. pp.), then yes indeed, I will agree. But by now I'm the only one who cares whatsoever. --A.Savin 05:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My advice is to retract that. We don't need proxy battles here. I'd suggest you move on. What we do need is people to follow the process of either listing the problematic categories for deletion or use the talk pages to discuss the categorization rather than a general "you are bad at categorizing" vagueness. At the end of the day, if you really can't just let someone else do whatever categories they want, I think you need to take a break from here. And if you are the sole person who cares, is it possible that the categorization isn't as wrong as you think? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.Savin (desysop prior discussion)

"can we hope one entire year without a dispute that include a threat of block from A.Savin within a conflict in which he is widely involved"?, the answer have been no of course. Furthermore although he did not block the user himself, I would not be surprised if he asked by email to one or more other administrators to do so.

Quesion: when the community will decide to desysop A.Savin? How many disputes will we have to undergo? when this paragraph will be closed, how long will we have to wait before a new conflict arises? 1 month, 2 months, 3 months 6 months? with another experiment user? or with another administrator? his confrontational behavior combined with responsibilities do not go together, whether for his own good or the good of the community. I have said it before and repeated several times. His confrontational behavior is not worthy of the status of administrator and although he has not abused of the tools he should not be administrator. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it looks like A.Savin follows Krok6kola in order to find his mistakes, I find it a quite disturbing. In particular as the bad faith of Krok6kola is far from to be obvious. I also wonder how @Steinsplitter: has been notified about the edits he quotes for the block rationale here and here, as those links are indeed overcat but it is not blatant at first view, because the overcat is not direct, and even Krok6kola who made the edits can have missed that it was indeed overcat and can have acted in good faith. So I really wonder by what miracle Steinsplitter managed to saw those edits, and to see the overcategorisation. Only someone who search that in particular, who tracks down the slightest fault of Krok6kola in search of a pretext for a conflict (at best) or for a block (at worse), or who is particulary interested in the topic "Cultural heritage monuments in Sindh" can have noticed those edits. And again for the 50th time, this behavior is not worthy of an administrator, to check public contributions is of course allowed, but to track someone on order to win (or maintain) a conflict is not less than hounding and a kind of harassement, and this battleground mentality is not worth of an administrator (and even quite questionable for a non-administrator). Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Steinsplitter has likely saw an edit war because of the rollback tag, this is not what I usually watch, this is why I did not think of this possibility when I asked how Steinsplitter managed to saw. This in no way excuses the pursuit made by A.Savin which lasts for several months, and who is again responsible for climbing. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant discussions from keyword search, may not be complete
  1. 2020 When the community will decide to desysop Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 86#A.Savin
  2. 2017 Prior discussion for De-adminship Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 65#A.Savin
  3. 2017 [...] calls other users vandal, corrupt, crook and thief Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 64#A.Savin
  4. 2016 Was blocked previously for harassment
  5. 2016 threat of legal action, which is clearly prohibited by Wikmedia TOU
--Fæ (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support 1989 (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support desysop Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I have no idea what is being proposed here, as it just seems to be random dirt digging. The Usual Suspects turn up here to yet again grumble that an admin they don't like is still an admin. Doing that reflects badly: we have enough grudge bearing in the last 24 hours without you adding to it, and you guys deserve a trout. I see two users (1989 and A.Savin) both lost their cool over the block (by another admin) of someone for overcat. I'm generally opposed to interaction bans. I would favour at this point both users are admonished for personal attacks and grudge bearing, and strongly encouraged to avoid each other in future: let other people deal with such matters. The Krok6kola interaction ban self-proposal is a transparent attempt to seek to censor a critic. They do appear to have categorisation issues that need dealt with in some way. Suggest all these sections be closed and folk move on. -- Colin (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, whereas not the best behavior, it it nowhere near the desysop level.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose What I'm doing here on Commons, I do to the best of my knowledge and belief; I'm a human and may occasionally make mistakes, but you always can friendly advice me about that; in general I'm friendly to people who are friendly to me, and in most cases even to those who are not. And I certainly didn't abuse any sysop's tools. --A.Savin 12:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)

  •  Comment A.Savin, I too do the best that I can and am a human being and make mistakes. I also am open to all friendly advice on what I am doing wrong and how I can improve. I try to be friendly always to others. And was so to you at first, A.Savin, but my attempts seemed to have had the opposite effect.
    Unfortunately I lack the technical knowledge most others here seem to have, but I have cultural knowledge so I am creative in the creation of categories. In other parts of the world where I do most of my editing, I have no problems. But I would welcome a mentor or someone who would be willing to help me understand the mistakes I do make in a way I can understand. "Rollback" tags do not explain. When I do make mistakes, other editors come to my page and explain. I always apologize and try to comply with their wishes. Reading COM:OVERCAT is not helpful to me, and there does not seem to be a consensus on the Category talk page about what it constitutes. So I would appreciate any help in correcting my faults. My motives are only to improve categorization on the Commons, not to cause problems or harm. I want to make peace with you, A.Savin and I appreciate your beautiful photographs. Krok6kola (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support There is sufficient evidence of macho harassing behaviour over a period of years to start a desysop discussion. All Wikimedia projects must take harassment seriously, including holding project administrators to account based on evidence, not just majority popularity or unpopularity. --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curious, where is this "sufficient evidence" for "macho harassing" "over a period of years"? --A.Savin 13:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not too sure that this meets the threshold for a de-adminship, has there been abuse of sysop tools? I see nothing in COM:DE-ADMIN where non-sysop behaviour is grounds for a removal process. I'm rather disappointed with the constant sniping and unhelpful comments. Even if A.Savin is contacting other "admins" off Commons (which is an unfounded allegation), the admin undertaking the admin action it responsible if it is a bad action, since all they have to do is ignore or say no. Bidgee (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is correct, but the desysop process refers to "serious offenses", and does not require there to be any evidence of an "abuse of sysop tools" in order to start a desysop vote. For example, were a sysop rights holder to be persistently bullying, promote hate speech, or disruptive in other ways without ever misusing the sysop tools, the community may judge this to be an offense serious enough to lose trust and fail to meet the requirements of Commons:Administrators#Community role. From the evidence and responses given earlier in this thread and earlier discussions, the specific requirement of prepared to work constructively with others has been repeatedly failed. Hounding others to provoke a response is the precise opposite of that requirement. --Fæ (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, where exactly did I "persistently bullying", "promote hate speech" (??), and/or being "disruptive in other ways"? --A.Savin 13:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a desysop vote, there will be a discussion section where you will be welcome to protest, be "curious", or even nit-pick over other people's past hypothetical statements, even where these logically made no claim whatsoever about you, if you really think that's an appropriate position to justify you can be trusted by the wider community, and an effective way of demonstrating that you do not hound other contributors. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of a Presumption of guilt? Unbelievable. --A.Savin 14:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The RFA system is well established, as is the desysop system, neither is intended as a judicial or criminal process. It is a fact that the current system measures popularity rather than competence or case evidence. If you want to propose changes, use COM:VPP, not this desysop "prior discussion". --Fæ (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, Admins should be held to a high standard, and should not inspire fear by ruling with an iron fist.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:JassenMarang17

JassenMarang17 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Due to big number of copyvios I blocked (s)he for a month. Taivo (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: Thanks! I believe the appropriate word is "them".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=529275031"