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.

Mmedstereast and bulk categorisation 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]
I  Support action, this edit admits to trolling to spoil our holidays.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now Allforrous is trying to get the emptied categories speedily deleted.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted. Yann (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked Allforrous for edit-warring. Yann (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I think I've reverted what's needed (but may of course have missed some or otherwise goofed)

However we're now missing a number of categories (these are just a few of them) that Túrelio speedy deleted soon after they'd been emptied. These (and the others) need to be restored. Yet again, this is why speedy deletions of empty categories must not be done immediately, and if the category has (as here) been emptied out of process.

Andy Dingley (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Restored. However I think these categories should be renamed to a more explicit name, with a redirect. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but as noted there are still plenty of these missing cats to restore. That requires access to either Túrelio's deletion log (which I don't have) or the redlinks on the list of moves here: [8].
I've no issue with renaming these category names to be clearer. GB practice is like this: Category:British Rail Class 59 59103 (although "class" shouldn't be capitalised). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good name. And the log is here. Yann (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was offline between 26th and 31st. -Túrelio (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to undelete these? [9] Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio: ? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foildking142 (talk · contribs)

This is another sock of the Jermboy account. Please delete all uploads as well, it only encourages them if the images stay. Fry1989 eh? 00:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Already blocked by Magog the Ogre. Yann (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marliojersey (talk · contribs)

This one as well, please. Fry1989 eh? 14:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see they've been blocked, but the uploads also need to go, please. Fry1989 eh? 16:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lololand4362 (talk · contribs)

This one and their uploads as well, please. Fry1989 eh? 15:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And also the uploads of Gohkenytp90909 (talk · contribs). Fry1989 eh? 15:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Both blocked, all uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arghamallick5151

Arghamallick5151 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

This user upload photos from his website. While they are nice they seems to me to be self-promotion and a conflict of interest as Commons is not to promote a website. Could an administrator clarify for this uploader. Pierre cb (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pierre cb: Which files are you referring to? If someone is uploading out of scope or promotional images you can warn them yourself, you don't need an admin for the initial warning(s). I use the User Messages gadget for this. I have removed a link from their user page but otherwise I don't see an issue Gbawden (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this uploader have watermarks from the website source. Pierre cb (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. I believe own work. Out-of-scope files can be nominated for regular deletion. Files with watermarks can be tagged with {{Watermark}} and the watermarks can be removed. One of the uploads is heavily used in multiple projects. Categorization is generally poor, but this is not a reason for deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr. Tripto Rahman

Mr. Tripto Rahman (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Self-promoter who has uploaded the same selfies a few times and removed deletion templates from them. They aren't contributing to any Wikimedia projects, outside of a speedily deleted autobiography draft on Wikipedia, and turning their Commons userpage into a promotional biography. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I warned Rahman. All uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: The user doubled down.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. All contributions, including userpage deleted as spam. Block is not needed at moment. Taivo (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ratcoon2

Ratcoon2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

✓ Done. All uploads deleted and account blocked for 2 weeks. --Túrelio (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YuriBro821 serial copyvios

YuriBro821 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Serial copyvios and false "own work" claims on aircraft.

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Latam linhas aereas A320.jpg (bundled images), deleted and warned 1st Jan, and now File:Voepass.png, uploaded since. Delete all and block needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I warned the user. Next time block. All uploads are deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leonel Sohns

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have uploaded recently such things, I did it in 2020. Leonel Sohns 12:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Leonel Sohns: That's irrelevant. When will you finish attributing the sources of your previous uploads?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iamirabar / User:Abaramir

Repeatedly uploading the same two copyvio images, plus some selfies. Both accounts have been warned to stop. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Sockpuppetry plus violation after warnings. I blocked both indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paolos004

✓ Done. I blocked Paolos indefinitely as sockpuppet, but I did not revert anything. Taivo (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Gazinit multiple copyvios despite warnings

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

Please see contributions history and talk page Timtrent (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet. All contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo Thank you. In order that I can raise an SPI on en WP (if relevant) may I know of whom this editor is a Sockpuppet, please. Please ping me on any reply. Timtrent (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OOpsy. I failed to check the one place it stated it! Timtrent (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heyhelloitsmelol

Only engaged in re-uploading copyright images from news websites and Instagram accounts and claiming many of them to be own. Run n Fly (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Already warned, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Пентель

Both are continuously uploading CSD#F10 images. Both were warned to not recreate files, but my warning probably won't last. A09090091 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Sock blocked indef. Older account blocked for a week. All files deleted. --Yann (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Megaph

This uploader continues to upload problematic and unfree image files, even after warnings on their talk page. Megaph also vandalizes decent files by overwriting them with copyright-problematic images, like File:Brgy. Telaje, Tandag City.jpg. See also Special:Listfiles/Megaph. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files (except one) deleted. --Yann (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Yann: . Oh, by the way, File:Mt. Asog.JPG still contains the user's problem files. Those files need to be revision deleted. Thanks in advance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Yann (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I deleted the last remaining upload due to failed license review: NC license with other restrictions on source site. Taivo (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anonymxx00

User persistently uploading (6 times in total) copyrighted images and claiming it as own work and also licensed under CC 4.0. — Paper9oll 09:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. --Yann (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann Last warning didn't work, user continue to upload copyright violation and this time claiming as licensed under CC 3.0 as seen with File:Kim Hyeon-soo.jpg, File:Kim Seon-ho in 2020.jpg, and File:Jo Han-chul.jpg, all of which are ripped from news articles on Naver News. — Paper9oll 06:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. --Yann (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you — Paper9oll 09:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:André365173

André365173 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) keep uploading pictures they take from internet as their "own work" even after a final warning. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 17:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aespablackmamba04

Uploading bunch of copyrighted images (including logos) since July 2021 and falsely claiming it as licensed under CC 4.0.

I have tagged all of them for CSD. — Paper9oll 09:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I warned the user and deleted speedily some copyvios due to failed license review. Taivo (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you. — Paper9oll 15:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=621118853"