Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU

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
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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
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.
  • 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.


Kephir and fictional flags

I believe this user should be banned from nominating fictional flags for deletion. There have been several issues with this, as previously discussed both here and in this DR. Particularly in the DR, they have stated they feel any fictional flag is up for deletion. That simply goes against the practice for the last 6 years I've been here and certainly longer. It is no longer appropriate for them to focus their deletion nominations on this subject. Fry1989 eh? 17:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting any particular admin action, but I find it annoying that: 1) User:Kephir has been told that having a general open public discussion on the subject as a whole would be preferable to sniping at individual files, yet Kephir has instead chosen the path of continuing to stir up turmoil by going after individual files one at a time (which would seem to betray certain drama-loving tendencies on his part). 2) Kephir never takes into account any objections by other users, or pointed rebuffs to his suggested deletions (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bandera Gay Reino Unido.png), but instead imperviously continues on in exactly the same way that he started, without any change of any sort to his approach, or to his generic boilerplate cookie-cutter one-size-fits-all text (copied and pasted into almost all his deletion nominations). 3) Kephir's response to myself and Fry1989 objecting to certain of his deletion nominations was to nominate some files uploaded by us for deletion. Kephir gets all huffy and faux-offended when this is raised, but it's strongly indicative that the first file of mine he nominated for deletion was the most recent "special or fictional flag" image on my uploaded files list -- certainly Kephir has not bothered to offer any alternative plausible scenario as to how "File:National flag of the Whoovians.svg" came to his attention... AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am demanding admin action. This user has made it clear they will deliberately and without any sincere judgement focus on fictions flags solely on the grounds that they are fictional, and there's clearly enough ignorant admins willing to go along with them. Combining that with Kephir's incompetence with the two DRs mentioned by AnonMoos, it is unacceptable that they be allowed to initiate DRs on this subject any longer. Fictional status alone IS NOT an acceptable reasoning for deletion, that has been the accepted practice for as long as I've been here and longer. Fry1989 eh? 18:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting on a response. I'm not letting the bot sweep this one away. Fry1989 eh? 18:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fry1989: , if the user has indeed stated such on the wiki (not off-wiki, that is), then I suggest that a RfC is called for. --Pitke (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I linked it ABOVE. Not only in that DR did they state "This fictitious flag deserves deletion just like any other.", they have recently spent their time nominating a string of images for deletion on the grounds of "fictional flag". They don't elaborate, for example that the image in question is deliberately misleading or some other aggravating factor for deletion, they just say it's fictional so it must go. That, combined with their lack of due diligence in nominating File:Bandera Gay Reino Unido.png shows they can not be trusted in this subject. Fry1989 eh? 22:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again another example of an admin going along with these invalid nominations. This one more importantly also has a revenge aspect against AnonMoos, being nominated shortly after their commenting on my original AN regarding Kephir's actions here. This needs to be dealt with NOW, stop ignoring this! Fry1989 eh? 18:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do I seriously have to burn the house down for this to get some sort of attention? Don't tempt me. Fry1989 eh? 17:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also find really unfair that he came to it.wiki to edit (i.e.: vandalize) a template for removing an image in use in hundreds of articles just to nominate it for deletion on Commons because "unused". --Gambo7 (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of admin tools by Thibaut120094

Admin Thibaut120094 indefinitely full protected the image File:Wikipe-tan trifecta sign softened language.png citing an "edit war" in response to a 17 August 2015 edit protection request. An implied participant in this "war" (i.e., me) made one edit. That is not an edit war. I wasn't even aware that my edit had been undone by other editor. No talk page discussion was initiated. I also object to file creator Sargoth saying the image was "vandalized" and asking for page protection without initiating any discussion. Where is the Commons:Assume good faith on either party? Sargoth is also acting as if he owns this media which he/she licensed to allow for remixing. I suggest the editor (and the admin) read Commons:Ownership of pages and files, in particular the nutshell summary. This admin action was a reckless and counter-policy and suggests not much thought was put into the admin action. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The protection by Thibaut120094 was imho fine. The new version (not the 1st upload) is different. Please upload your version under a new name. And please remember to COM:AGF and remain COM:MELLOW. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is a clear case of abusing the word abuse and maybe even a violation of Commons:Overwriting existing files. Natuur12 (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I protected the file for an indefinite time like the meta page where the image is transcluded. Several users have been edit warring on this file and the meta page, the protection is justified. Now please upload the file under a new name or discuss on the file talk page. Thibaut120094 (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An admin is accusing editors of "edit-warring" who were not edit warring and then used this as justification to protect a page; so it is absolutely is not an abuse of the word "abuse", Natuur12. The issue under discussion here is absolutely not the image, it is Sargoth and Thibaut120094's assumptions of bad faith and their false accusations of vandalism and edit warring. There were only two edits to the image that changed the text from the original. Neither Tharthan nor myself ever made more than one edit and by definition were not engaged in an edit war. And since when do two edits by two different editors in five months constitutes edit warring? On top of this, Sargoth never explained why he was reverting, not in the edit summary nor in the change comment. I didn't even see that Sargoth was the creator of the image at the time; all I saw was that he reverted from a version that made grammatical sense to one that didn't. Tharthan surely thought he was fixing a mistake with his edit and so did I with mine. If Sargoth had used an edit summary or the talk page no confusion would have arisen. Instead of engaging in communication as is the wiki way, he goes straight to a noticeboard to get the page protected. The problem here is that Tharthan and myself both made good faith edits yet both ended up accused of edit warring by an admin that doesn't appear to know what constitutes edit warring. As for the image, I have no further intention of editing the image since it's now clear it's the image Sargoth wanted. Sargoth needs to explain his/her edits before accusing people of being vandals who aren't and the page has not had the need for protection properly justified. It somebody wishes to protect the page because the meta page is protected, that's fine, but I insist that Thibaut120094 retract the previous edit. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you are correct: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. and therefor it cannot be abuse. Natuur12 (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Instead of uploading a second version under a similar name we have to waste our spare time and read all those cow cookies? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already addressed your suggestion directly and its not the topic so please read comments before accusing them of being "cow cookies". For the record, using a euphemism for "shit" doesn't make your comment any less uncivil. What's the intended benefit of your comment? It's just a pair of rhetorically-framed questions that don't even address the issue. Nothing productive was added. You're also an admin. You're supposed to be level-headed voice of reason backed by thorough knowledge of policy; yet you to don't even address, let alone confirm or refute, any of my statements concerning policy. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have not assumed malice. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1 on Natuur12. Specifically, in the file history I see two reuploads which are clearly in violation of the file overwriting policy and further edit warring appears likely. The protection doesn't seem to do any harm. --Nemo 11:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my reply only for you, Jason Quinn: Like it or not. Your are a sysop on enwiki, you should know better not to tie up tons of value volunteer time. You are accusing Thibaut120094 of a (is there one?) minor offense. Starting a big discussion about this doesn't help the project, only your bruised ego. Like it or not, this is going nowhere. Upload under a different name or don't, but stop disrupting Commons. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Quinn, if you see now that your behavior was wrong, but didn't see it then, nobody accueses you of anything. But you shouldn't stress policies / do wiki-laywering but simply apologize. Thanks to the others. And for the record: I don't "own" any pictures, most of the ones I really own were uploaded under cc-0 so the ownership is history. Cheers --Sargoth (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sargoth, you falsely accused users of being vandals. I already mentioned this so when you write "nobody [accused] you of anything", it is at best an oversight and at worst a lie. Further, by avoiding discussion on the image page and going straight to a noticeboard without contacting us, you also went behind the backs of the two editors implicitly accused. I have no need to apologize. Quite the opposite. You say that we "shouldn't stress policies". Think about that. I am well aware there's a time and place to ignore the rules; this hasn't been one. You and the others advocate ignoring policy and just playing by your own rules. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your response is absurd, Hedwig. This has not been a "big discussion" nor has it tied up "tons of time". That's a wildly grandiose description for few paragraph-size comments. For the record, there's no bruised ego. What I care about is competent admin action and what motivates me is that neither you nor Thibaut120094 have demonstrated that in this case. Besides your own replies suggesting that you do not finish reading the very comments you reply to, you avoid tackling the issue and demonstrate a lack of understanding and/or disregard for policy. Ideally, here's what you should have done. You say, "Thibaut120094, that was not an edit war, please be more careful next time." That Sargoth dismissively says I "stress policies" (as if there is something wrong with this) should be a big clue that you have failed here and are not acting as an admin should. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr clave

This user's uploads appear to consist of self-made sheet music for copyrighted music. I don't have time to address this, but a mass deletion nomination may be necessary. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal issue

Good day. I wish to address an issue with a particular User, but I do not wish this to be viewed by said individual. Is this a private messaging system, or is whatever I comment seen by all? Thank you for your assistance and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parenchyma18 (talk • contribs)

If it really is a matter that can only be dealt with in confidence, I suggest you email an Administrator for advice. This is not normal, however, it is customary to raise the issue with the other user first. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is really not normal and should not be encouraged. Parenchyma18 has not made any edits in Commons except this post. Taivo (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For questions involving privacy issues, you may contact the Oversighters. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing up an old discussion...

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 38#Wikipediohacker is an old discussion from 2013, but several of the images posted therein have not been deleted. The licensing and attribution consist of the word "me" and were posted by a known indef banned user. Could someone please look at these images again? MSJapan (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=169687741"