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

  • Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
  • 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.

Cardohnalboyah (talk · contribs)

Another Jermboy sock. Please block and delete all uploads. Fry1989 eh? 14:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Indeffed by Turelio, files deleted by me. De728631 (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lindelboy123 (talk · contribs)

This one as well, please. Fry1989 eh? 14:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roadsignsover9000 (talk · contribs)

Also this one, please. Fry1989 eh? 17:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I deleted all uploads, because I do not believe they aren't hoaxes. Taivo (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Trijnstel and Martin Urbanec: Would you please help with m:srg#‎Global lock and block for Cardohnalboyah et al?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foiledboy27 (talk · contribs)

Also this one, please. Fry1989 eh? 15:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) Foiledboy27 (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Indefinitely blocked. Taivo (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saikakohei

After receiving copyvio warning, this user posted the same copyvio photo. --Netora (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. 3 days; all his uploads are the same photo. --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Now I blocked the user for a month. All contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proven socks belonging to a LTA

Hi, I ask a sysop to block the following accounts: Bozs (talk · contributions · Statistics), J De cinema (talk · contributions · Statistics), Samuca Berro (talk · contributions · Statistics), Marcelo Canaleta (talk · contributions · Statistics), Camila Maciel Estefani (talk · contributions · Statistics), Her Passl (talk · contributions · Statistics), Sérgio Castelar (talk · contributions · Statistics), O revolucionário aliado (talk · contributions · Statistics) and Lentoster (talk · contributions · Statistics). They are all proven socks of Pé Espalhado (talk · contributions · Statistics), a en:WP:LTA mostly active in the pt.WP (their home wiki), but who also "spread" to other WMF projects, including the Commons. The can be found here. If you need, I can open a "Request for checkuser" here on Commons, but as the checkuser's results are valid in all the WMF projects I think it's unnecessary. Regards. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 21:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Abusing multiple accounts is prohibited. I see here using multiple accounts, but not abusing them. If you still want to have them blocked, then you must complain in meta, but I do not want to block them. Taivo (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kacamata and Taivo: Please see m:srg#Global lock for Pé Espalhado et al.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this was really unnecessary. Taivo (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo They are abusing on pt.WP. Actually, there, they are one of their worst LTAs. I was trying to prevent them to abuse another projects where they are active. Otherwise, I would have to track and watch every single of these accounts in order to assure that they'll not return in the future to cause damage to other projects. As they are all proven socks, I thought it would much easier to simply block all these accounts. I only listed here the socks/accounts that are active on Commons. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 21:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B.Ảnh1234

Suspected to be a sockpuppet of Lý Ngọc Đạt. All of their uploads are portraits of Vietnamese and Lao politicians. Some of them are legitimate, others are likely copyrights violations (I have reported one of them). Some of their uploads has a name started with "Mr." or "Mrs.", much like other sockpuppets of Đạt.--Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 08:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another one, with same pattern. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 07:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:User4edits

User4edits (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has received an end copyvios warning but continues to upload images with false claims of PD etc. Uploads need to be deleted and user requires some sort of admin action too.—SpacemanSpiff 14:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Uploads stopped after EugeneZelenko warned the user and nominated a lot of uploads for deletion. Taivo (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User reports understanding. It is further reported that the user has not uploaded anything in violation after being informed on PD usage. The sense of 'contined upload' seems to have emerged when a proper sequence of events perhaps, inadvertently, has been ignored.. User4edits (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gateshebe

Gateshebe (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  – continual upload of non-free content, despite the previous block and large number of warnings. --Teslaton (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. One month block. Taivo (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modfrplays

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Last warning sent. All files already deleted. Yann (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Impossibleultimate1545

Copyright violations. I've already nominated the images for deletion. User is involved in an ANI on on English Wikipedia involving, among other things, sockpuppetry; the user is unresponsive to talk page warnings/notifications. RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Last warning sent. Some files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Nosta 2 Larue

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Last warning sent. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali724444

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:ពេជ្រសោភា1

ពេជ្រសោភា1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

✓ Done. Indef'd; see also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#C22H30N6O4S.--Túrelio (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Next SP: Fcc12 (talk · contribs). --Túrelio (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio: Thanks, the appropriate button appears to be here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done by Yann.--Túrelio (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio and Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio, Achim55, and Yann: Every time one of the socks of Sokreas87 is caught, Sokreas87 should be blocked longer as continuing to abuse multiple accounts.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GabrielDorneles

Has uploaded a great number of files (1,000+ !), obviously not own works, all with wrong licenses (CC-BY-SA). Some of them may be kept as PD-old, or for another reason, but all need to be checked. Yann (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:欣欣客運代理商股份有限公司

Sockpuppet account of User:鄭啟民. --Solomon203 (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 09:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mmedstereast and bulk catagorisation changes to DRG Class 44 etc

Mmedstereast (talk · contribs)

Ping @Tsungam: and @Yann: as recently involved.

A large overnight run (hundreds) to move a lot of content on preserved German steam locos from the per-loco categories to the broader per-class category, leaving the loco categories empty and likely for speedy deletion. e.g. [1] [2]

It's questionable whether this should have been done. I would oppose it. If "they should be in the parent cat" is really vital, then they should be there in addition (I wouldn't oppose that, if other editors wanted it). But as it is, it destroys the per-survivor cats and is tantamount to a bulk category deletion. So as an absolute minimum, there should have been prior discussion of this. Magnus has already reverted a few, but really this needs a big admin mallet and a bulk rollback.

Some other changes, e.g. [3] seem reasonable.

There's also a recent SPI Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mmedstereast which closed in an unclear fashion, although the user page is still tagged as a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bulk rollback for Puminuno (talk · contribs) would be useful too, as they've jumped onto the current situation. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually right. In 2015, users wanted to remove categories because they were redundant, now they wanted to restore categories. Some users are sinking. First rewerted and deleted new categories, now revert SD request. the categorization rules lie fallow. Anarchy is rampant on this site, administrators are inconsistent. It's not worth getting involved. Even if you want to correct something that outraged the editors, it turns out that you are doing something wrong. In a few years, someone will want to create new categories, then there will be an uproar again. Over and over again. --Mmedstereast (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that in locomotive series in other countries doesn't exist separate categories for one locomotive. Existence separate categories for 1-2 photos of one from many locomotives within one locomotive's class is making a mess on Commons. User 95.41.17.58 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 46.76.30.119 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 5.60.27.239 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 31.1.80.89 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  made in 2015 many separate categories according to locomotive numbers. His editions were mass reverted. Categories make by him were deleted. These editions have been criticized by the editors. [4][5][6][7]. In many cases the locomotive numbers were made up. In one case, the category was created for locomotive model! It was absurd that separate categories were created even for EDV numbers. Therefore, in order to standardize the categorization, I remove redundant and counterproductive categories. it's really funny how someone creates hundreds of categories for separate numbers, users were indignant and deleted some categories, but when it turned out to be too many, abandoned the problem. Now, when someone wants resolve the problem with it, the situation repeats itself, but now suddenly are defenders of these changes. In 2015 users wanted deleted categories because there were reduntant, now wanted restore categories. Seen on commons is problem with rules of categorisation. The editors change their minds like a flag in the wind. --Mmedstereast (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you thought there was a case to make against these, then why didn't you try to make it beforehand? Especially if you thought there was such widespread support to remove them. But you didn't, and for a change this broad (even if you're right) you need to involve other editors first.
Also your claim "locomotive series in other countries doesn't exist separate categories for one locomotive" is simply untrue. Now I don't advocate this as a general practice for locos that are still in service, but here we're talking about the relatively rare examples that have been preserved after withdrawal. For those we certainly justify having per-example categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First I had to analyze it, after thinking and analysis , I found that many separate categories actual are reduntant because contain 1-2 pictures and some categories are not tragic at first glance but I noticed a dangerous precedent, when are creating separate numbers for EDV numbers. Some locomotive sometimes has two categories for separate periods of designations that is Deutsche Bundesbahn or Deutsche Reichsbahn. Besides, with a certain limit value of the number of photos, there should be separate categories? Categories for just a few photos are reduntant. Like making a separate categories for locomotives as monuments and categories for this same locomotives from the time of operation. ockham's razor is in my opinion the best way. --Mmedstereast (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could address issues like that by adding the images as well to the class category. Or by limiting the per-loco categories to one per physical example and using longer, composite names. This is done a lot for French classes where there were several railway companies and classes were renamed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please make corrections yourself, you are in action only when you need to pay attention to someone. Your inconsistency is acting on your unreliability anyway. On the exampple 18 201 and 02 0201-2 are designations of this same locomotive and existing two separate categorie are unsense. In example polish locomotives we have four or five changes of designation in history. As you can see the editors the editors don't mind making a rubish bin from this portal Category:Express passenger tender locomotive 18201 in Bebra (2012), existing categories for any places where was photographed locomotive is disorder. 18 201 is a fame locomotive and was in many places. Commons is a cesspool in which administrators are drowning apparently they like it. Never wrestle with a pig – it gets mud all over you and the pig likes it. --Mmedstereast (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)--Mmedstereast (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mmedstereast: Take back that personal attack.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about the previous speaker. The problem is general and does not concern just one editor. Instead of finding a solution, you can only pick on me. There are no uniform rules for categorization? --Mmedstereast (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mmedstereast: We allow categories with one member, as well as flat list categories.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mmedstereast: I don't know if you are right or not, but attacking people will make you blocked very soon. You better keep a polite language, and discuss pleacefully. Yann (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a category with one photo of the steam engine is acceptable? A peaceful discussion is difficult, as I have shown, the administrators' opinion is different from 2015. As can be seen in the discussion at that time, there was also a great uproar. at least I spoiled your holidays and you have to deal with me instead of spending time with your family. --Mmedstereast (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritam Kumar Das

Only engaged in uploading copyright violation images. Has been warned several times earlier. Run n Fly (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=616626032"