Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:AN/U · COM:ANU

Community portal
introduction		 Help desk Village pump
copyright • proposals		 Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.
Vandalism
[new report]		 User problems
[new report]		 Blocks and protections
[new report]		 Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.

Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.

Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.

Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed here.
Archives
12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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 (index)

Note

  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

User:Tm careless categorization[edit]

This user is making a mess by adding thousands of images from certain Flickr streams into Category:Politicians of Europe without caring whether these images depict politicians or not. Many of these images don't depict politicians. When I re-categorize by moving images into more specific category, or when I remove images that I've check don't depict politicians or where clearly no-one has checked whether they depict politicians, then one simply re-adds these images into "Politicians of Europe". I understand that this user also does mass-categorization work, which isn't necessarily controversial and might be of some help, but judging by this other mess, it's more harm than good. I suggest blocking, at least temporarily. User isn't responsive. For further explanation see User talk:Tm#Careless categorization. 62.65.58.165 14:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tm: Do you have a response to these concerns? We can't just ignore them. If you're categorizing a lot of non politician-related images into a politician category, that's a valid concern to be brought here and discussed. Daphne Lantier 06:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Tm has been hassled quite a bit, in this case about uploads from last year, so it does not seem especially urgent. It would be refreshing if rather than threats and gripes, there were positive suggestions about how mass categorization of these batch uploads could be realistically automated. If categorization in this area is too complex for automation, I suggest simply stripping the categories en mass, and leaving them in a to-be-sorted maintenance cat. At the sample I have checked, Tm already added one other meaningful category, and in that scenario the more general 'Politicians of Europe' can be dropped without any harm.
I never feel obliged to respond to IP addresses when they are obviously a long term user acting anonymously and quite probably sockpuppeting; especially with my experience of being unpleasantly threatened by a WMF employee with a permanent office block should I even accidentally respond to a WMF blocked user. --Fæ (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you have a reason (e.g. behavioural evidence) to consider me as a sock of any related party. So please let's refrain from that sort of accusation and argumentum ad hominem. Editing without being logged in is allowed on Commons.
This came to my attention in relation to recent uploads (see examples at Tm's talk page). Uploads from last year however illustrate that Tm has no intention to fix wrong categories. Dropping 'Politicians of Europe' is exactly what I suggested, especially since another correct topic category is present for all images. But Tm sticks to adding politicians' category for all images from certain streams. 62.65.58.165 16:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The missing response by Tm says more than 1,000 words. A block for spamming is long overdue. --A.Savin 14:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
A block for spamming would be a cause for revisiting the competence of the administrator taking that action. Tm's uploads are not vandalism or spamming, so perhaps you could be slightly less inflamatory when talking about improving a long term contributor's efforts? --Fæ (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The only one who is infamatory is you. I only do my job to improve Commons. --A.Savin 16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I suspect you have made my point for anyone caring to read this far. In my experience, Tm is far better at avoiding inflaming problems than others writing here. --Fæ (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Now all content was moved to Category:Unidentified politicians of Europe, but this doesn't change anything. Regardless of (possibly) unidentified subjects, many of these images still aren't of politicians. To be clear, I never complained that images are in they way and need to be moved to subcategories, instead the main problem is that images are in entirely wrong category tree.

It still isn't clear why the politicians' category isn't simply dropped for images where no-one has checked which of these are of politicians. Where approprite polticians' category can be always added later, without adding misleading categories in the first place. 62.65.58.165 15:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The Category:Unidentified politicians of Europe and others [[Category:Unidentified]] serves its purposes to identify unidentified subjects. Instead of "threats and gripes" as stated by Fæ, if you and other users made positive sugestions and editions like the one i made by creating Category:Unidentified politicians of Europe to sort this image and "leaving them in a to-be-sorted maintenance cat" to be worked, i would answer quicker. But threats and requests of blocks leave me with little patience to answer to the ones making them.
Also you claim that you remove this categories form images that dont depict politicians or unknown politicians. First your IP seems to come from Estonia on one extreme of EU, i´am from POrtugal, the other extreme and in between there are 26 other countries with hundreds of politicians, several well known in their country but unknown in the rest of the EU. Also you deleted the category from images depicting known politicians like Jean Claude Junker or identified like Jüri Ratas, so you cannot claim to only "remove images that I've check don't depict politicians or where clearly no-one has checked whether they depict politicians". Tm (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
In fact, I turned to you with positive suggestion days before making a complaint here.
I appreciate that you now finally try to address this concern, but as told, moving images in that way doesn't really make a difference. The same way as in parent category, you ask to identify a politician, who on many images in fact isn't a politician.
I'm not complaining that some (foreign) politicians are unknown to me. Instead I have identified numerous known persons from different countries in this politicians' category that are not politicians. For some albums like this over half of the images don't depict politicians, nonetheless you categorize all as politicians. For some other events, odds that someone wearing a suit is a politician or a diplomat or a civil servant, are pretty much equal, nonetheless you categorize all as politicians. This illustrates that you don't check what you are doing, you are deliberately making a mess, and it's just careless.
I don't think it's fair to accuse me of not checking categories for all images that you didn't check in the first place. I didn't claim that I removed this category only when I identified (all) persons. I think that for a start it's constructive to remove this category en masse (the same way you added it), and this is what should be done, because this category is misleading for many cases. So it's easier to add correct categories later, if necessary and if present (non-politician) categories aren't enough already. 62.65.58.165 17:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
You claimed you gave good advice, but you only complained and made a mess as i´ll explain below. I
In my talkpage you said that "I've checked whether some well-known person (politician or not) is the main topic and adjusted categories accordingly" and in here that you only "remove images that I've check don't depict politicians or where clearly no-one has checked whether they depict politicians", as i´ve shown in a example you´ve removed any change of put that images in the categories of the depicted persons. Instead you´ve removed from hundreds of images any change of knowing what is and what is not categorized by person, even when that image shows someone famous or at least identified (like you did eith images of Jean Claude Junker and Donald Tusk).
What you are now "proposing" is to hide that images, only categorizing them in events categories, doubling the efforts of categorization, as if someone made what you proposed no one would known what images are already with categories of persons, be it politicians, diplomats, civil servants. Also in case you dont know in the last year i´ve already categorized hundreds if not thousands of this images with event and person categories, many more than you did. When you removed i started by checking each image to categorized the depicted persons but you kept removing hundreds more images so that why i´ve added again a maintenance category so that in the future me or other user can properly categorize them. You are the one that is making a mess and an impossiblity to properly categorize this images, as explained above. Tm (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you're accusing me of. I did exactly what you quoted. I added person specific categories (adjusted categories) where some person was the main subject. For the rest I didn't bother, and I went for at least removing a category that is likely wrong (that you hadn't checked in the first place). Also, as part of general cleanup I added event title as the missing description. For the given example the event title simple happens to include names of the two persons depicted (this isn't case for numerous other images from the same event). By now I've re-categorized 100s of images from this stream into more exact categories, too. Though, I don't think it's a competition, nor that it was relevant here.
I don't quite get what you mean by "hiding" images. Images being in wrong category is justified, because images aren't "hidden" that way? Also, it isn't necessary for all of these images to be put in person specific categories. For instance, images that don't depict persons, or where people are the main subject, or group photos that are poor illustrations of specific persons. In any case, it's pretty much like always possible to add some additional (correct) categories that previous editors didn't consider necessary. There usually aren't maintenance categories for this purpose. If you really do consider maintenance category necessary, then please do have a proper maintenance category, instead of abusing a topic category. For instance use a hidden category entitled "To be checked if some person specific category should be added", or something like that. 62.65.58.165 18:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Livioandronico2013 once more[edit]

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon. The comment of User:Livioandronico2013 was inappropriate and aggressive towards Code, the block and comment made by Steinsplitter are adequate in view of the present and past situation of the blocked user Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Livioandronico2013, who has a certain block history because of insulting others, called me "the most vindictive" (whatever this shall mean) and "just a vengeful and savage person" and said that I "say a tide of bullshit". I don't know what his problem is because there was no real communication between us before. It's true that I complained about some votes of different users on one of my pictures but I didn't rely on his vote in particular. You might have a look at the full context, if you want to. I believe that his vote was a kind of revenge vote because I opposed two of his FPC nominations before, but I don't think that this is really important here. However, Livio's comment is highly disruptive, aggressive and rude and creates a poisonous and disrespectful atmosphere at FPC. Additionally, when he was blocked the last time, Livio promised not to interact with or about me (and others) any more (see here for more information). He's broken his promise now. I think such bad behaviour shouldn't be accepted here on Commons because it's creating a destructive atmosphere. Livio behaves once more very rude and it doesn't seem as if he had learned his lesson from his earlier blocks. I think administrative action because of intimidation/harrassment should be taken here. --Code (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Another time ok. don't you write :"Opposing because "the lamps are distorted" is simply bullshit[1]." ? Write this to my comment what is it? After I voted this one[2] You for revenge voted for here [3] and here [4]. Do not do the saint because you are not able. Ask to Daphne Lantier,George Chernilevsky,Jkadavoor or others if I ever gave any problems, even when the code voted otherwise I never said anything. But when one writes "Opposing because "the lamps are distorted" is simply bullshit" and wants to make the part of the poor photographer that working while others enjoy themselves...for me it's a blasphemy.--LivioAndronico (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Code, Livioandronico2013: Perhaps a good solution would be an agreement between the two of you not to vote on each other's FP nominations? Daphne Lantier 23:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but this doesn't change anything on the fact that this was a personal insult by Livioandronico, who had been blocked in the past for very similar issues. That means, a new block is overdue. --A.Savin 03:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I certainly agree that Livioandronico2013 should refrain from these outbursts, but it looks like he's done pretty well since being unblocked back in December. This seems to be the first big problem since that block was removed. He doesn't have a long history of blocks, as I've seen with some other users. I think if he and Code can agree not to vote on each other's FP nominations, the problem would be resolved. I propose this as a last chance at an end to problems between the two, but if other admins feel that a block is necessary, then that's up to the community of course. Daphne Lantier 06:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Daphne Lantier, but A.Savin does not see what Code did, he block up without asking anyone (in fact I wonder how he can be an administrator!) he has been rebuked other times. Nevertheless, he will never admit that I was provoked --LivioAndronico (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@Daphne Lantier: Livio may vote on my FPC nominations and I will continue to vote on his (after my return from the wikibreak I'm going to take from this week on). This complaint is not about FPC voting. This complaint is about Livio's insults which have to stop. So in my eyes a good solution would be if Livio would stop insulting me (and others). And I think his last insults deserve some kind of sanction. His reaction here doesn't look as if he understood the problem. It just can't be right to let him get away with such rude behaviour ("just a vengeful and savage person", "say a tide of bullshit"). This is highly disruptive and it's a clear violation of our standards. Our rules (no intimidation/harassment) have to be enforced, otherwise we can throw them away completely. --Code (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I strongly oppose suggesting or imposing any form of interaction ban. It isn't a solution to the issues with Livo, which is that he is incredibly rude to anyone who opposes his images with any regularity and has frequently engaged in quite blatant revenge voting. And I don't mean the kind of "strongly inclined to find fault" vote we see here, but far more obvious. Banning Code from voting on Livio's images is in fact a result for Livio. Ever wonder why those who take FP cathedral photos never support Livio's cathedral photos? Because they have all suffered abuse from Livio and decide that life is too short. Livio's photos are way-over-processed and considerably lower standard than our "finest" cathedral images (compare with Poco, Dilif, Benh, Code). But he is fortunate to live in a city with a supply of great subjects, and there are always enough "support almost anything" voters to get him his FPs provided nobody opposes. For FP to work, it needs voters who are prepared to oppose rather than just pass and take an easy life. But anyone who does this more than occasionally with Livio gets abuse or revenge votes.
So please, Danphne, see that your "good solution" is simply playing along with Livio's game. In as much as Commons is a community, it needs photographers who will engage positively with other photographers, to learn, to share knowledge and techniques, and to aim to improve their image making. At FPC it needs voters who are honest and fair in their votes for others. Livio is none of these. He does not engage positively with others. His votes are often motivated. He is not interested in improving his images. He does not care to make an honest reproduction of artworks, rather than a over-processed cartoon version. The outburst at that FPC, with insults, deserves a block. And a longer one that before I think. -- Colin (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@Colin, Code: I'm not familiar with Livio's past behavior. I try to be the peacemaker, but in some situations that's just not going to work. This looks like one of them. The outburst by Livio was very surprising to me, and was over the top and out of place. Since this is a behavioral pattern, then a block is justified. I hope Livio will learn from this before he gets indefinitely blocked. I guess we'll see how it goes. It's too bad to see that kind of thing at FPC, as it's really an enjoyable place for me. I hope Code returns soon, as his work is really great. Daphne Lantier 18:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, especially in projects like this where language is often a barrier, one can say a thing the way the counterpart doesn't see it as demeaning. Some years ago one wrote in a RfD No one in good faith would defend this photograph, and I asked them if they considered me in bad faith then. They refused to answer and rollbacked my question; another fellow admin told me that this is a common expression which not necessarily inferes bad faith. The fact is in some context, the way to say something is triggering. You are all intelligent people, and know what I mean. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The "language barrier" excuse can explain occasional misunderstandings and a comment being interpreted differently to intention. But it has long moved past that AGF with Livio. I suspect Blackcat hasn't actually read the FPC we're discussing. If he had, he'd notice Livio's messages contain about a dozen !!!!!, SHOUTY UPPERCASE WRITING IN BOLD and I very much doubt the phrase "a tide of bullshit" is being wrongly interpreted by anyone. -- Colin (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I am afraid the user must be indefblocked. This will not make Commons an enjoyable place, but at lest this would be a step in a right direction.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Colin, I know what you mean, but for example in my home wiki I allow myself some freedom in the language that I avoid strictly on here. One day for having said that nobody knows Catalunya outside Spain (I meant as sports nation, of course, not having Catalunya official national sports team like i.e. England or Scotland) a diplomatic incident raised like I had declared war on Catalunya. So I decided to avoid anything that might sound triggering. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Well I don't think your comment is helpful to this conversation, which isn't about COM:MELLOW misunderstandings, but with a user who has a long pattern of being aggressively insulting towards those who dare oppose his images at FPC, and who frequently then revenge votes in retaliation. -- Colin (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
✓ Blocked for ten days (block log). uncivil behaviour/personal attacks after previous blocks/warnings. Next time the block may be longer or indef. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

User:FSUUpedia Restore Division[edit]

This user appears to be a division of a joke organization, uploading many copyright violations.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, my photos are not copyright violations and my user page is not a joke organization. I upload all of my own photos (3 of my photos are confirmed by an OTRS while the rest is not appeared in the internet or other social media networks, in short, my own and original photo of my work). I am not joke about my both photos and my user page. And thank you for that message on my talk page. FSUUpedia Restore Division (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sock/meatpuppet spam deletion requests[edit]

The most controversial image on Commons

A bunch of IP editors are swarming these pages, making repeated deletion requests. There have been several in the past, and it's been kept each time. I've closed the requests, but more are likely to happen soon. I recommend reverting on sight, because this has been asked and answered. Guanaco (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

They outdid themselves when they recursively nominated the deletion nomination page itself for deletion (twice!), but the cumulative effect is quite annoying... AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Protected. File admin only, talk page no IP. If needed we can up the talk page protection. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
FYI: The off-wiki coordination seems to be taking place at http://infognomonpolitics.blogspot.com/2017/07/blog-post_763.html and http://indobserver.blogspot.com/2017/07/blog-post_546.html. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Too bad that none of them could figure out what the correct procedure was... AnonMoos (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

User removing license tags[edit]

Magog tagged a lot of files from this user last night due to copyright problems. As of now, the user is trying to fix things by adding this rider to them-- "the creator of a work has been deceased for more than 70 years (UK)"--the license itself hasn't been changed. I can rollback all the files to Magog's tags, but I can't keep the user from removing the tags. We hope (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I'm trying to replace the templates so don't roll me back too with her edits please.... Mabalu (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I've done everything you haven't changed. We hope (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Smial[edit]

I don't think that I have to tolerate an open accusation of bullying, even though it's written not in English but "only" in German language. Thanks --A.Savin 12:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Nö --A.Savin 14:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Was siehest du aber den Splitter in deines Bruders Auge und wirst nicht gewahr des Balken in deinem Auge? hilarmont \\ talk, talk, talk 16:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you response in English, according to the topic and without whataboutism? Your personal insults are inacceptable and embarassing. Why are you insulting me? I don't know you at all and cannot recall any conflict with you. --A.Savin 17:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Ich erinnere mich an dich noch als S1 in der dt. Wikipedia. Dich sollte man hier auch mit "bindet zuviel Ressourcen" sperren. Geändert hast du dich kaum. Und die Sprache in der ich kommuniziere, lass ich mir garantiert nicht vorschreiben. hilarmont \\ talk, talk, talk 19:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Er weiß natürlich genau und nutzt es dementsprechend aus, daß ich wegen EN-1 hier keine Chance habe, präzise zu argumentieren, also quasi wehrlos bin. Ich bin seine Angriffe inzwischen gewohnt, sie sind regelmäßig hoch agressiv, jedoch genauso regelmäßig substanzlos, wie man beispielsweise hier überdeutlich sehen kann. Da wirft er mir Straftaten vor, kann aber nichts, aber auch gar nichts liefern. Schlicht, weil es nichts gibt. --Smial (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Where else and in which language rather than English should I complain when you are insulting me here on Commons? --A.Savin 01:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Is the accusation accurate? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Alexander, being an unloved is often the price to pay for assuming one's convictions and values, I know it very well :) Maybe someday you will be able to think like me, I wish it for you. I don't think an other administrator has to do anything that you can't do yourself, and I don't think you have to do any administrative actions on this case. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Unhelpful comment. Was to expect from you. --A.Savin 18:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Just wondering about A.Savin's comment ("Can you response in English"). Once I scrutinized his comment in English at QIC (as common at QIC) he responded in German. @A.Savin: It seems you switch the language as well, as you feel like. So. Please do not blame him too much. But anyway. I would kindly ask you all, to focus on one language. @Tuválkin. I do not think, an admin action is necessary here. Just a little skirmish. They can solve it. -- DerFussi 20:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
By now, none of the discussants of this thread was able or willing to comment on topic. Only whataboutism etc.. One of them is even accusing me of things that happened in German wiki 8-10 years (!) ago. I still would like to have an opinion on Smial's comment, who is accusing me of having him bullied from QIC, which is a lie. --A.Savin 21:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Economía Crítica[edit]

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon. No administrative action is necessary here. User warned by OP and Discasto. Wikicology (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This user appears to be an SPA uploading copyvios for its pet article on Spanish Wikipedia.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't see any reason for any notice here. He hasn't been given any explanation about his uploads (you just filled his page with automatic templates and immediately came here without trying to talk to him to explain that he was wrong) and he hasn't been uploading copyvios after the first warning (there was not first warning). From his four uploads, two are valid and the subject seems to be slightly notable and definitely in scope. Please, talk to users here before coming here. This is only the last resource when no other action is possible. --Discasto talk 15:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=252537970"