Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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
19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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
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 (index)

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 via their user talk page(s). {{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 Smacklimy777[edit]

Smacklimy777 is a stalker.--UeArtemis (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:ManyemaKasongoDescendent[edit]

This user has been involved in an edit war over File:Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg and File:Presidential Seal of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg. Whilst I welcome file protection of File:Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg, the version created by Fenn-O-maniC at 05:59, 2021 April 6 is clearly an improvement, and I would ask that the file be protected under that revision, especially considering ManyemaKasongoDescendent provided no explanation for their reverts. I would also ask that the other file be protected as well, using its improved version, and that ManyemaKasongoDescendent be forced to explain themselves. Fry1989 eh? 14:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m very insulted by the disingenuous nature of this message, @Fry1989Fry1989. As I’ve reiterated, this not an edit war. I have asked on numerous occasions to be provided with an official source to justify the revision by @Fenn-O-maniC but this request has been ignored.
The hyperlinks/sources used to justify the revision is from unofficial government websites (leganet.cd and ocongo.com to name a few)
The executive branch of the government in the country in question (Democratic Republic of the Congo), responsible for the execution of law (hence “executive” name), has made clear what the emblem of the Democratic Republic of Congo (see: https://www.presidence.cd/detail-symbole/2)
I will happily revert to @Fenn-O-maniC revision if it is based on up-to-date government documents etc and/or explicit vectorised emblem by the government which is already the case (see: https://www.presidence.cd/detail-symbole/2)
I don’t see why @Fenn-O-maniC usurps what the official government vectorisation of the emblem (see: https://www.presidence.cd/detail-symbole/2)
@Fry1989Fry1989 ManyemaKasongoDescendent (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fourth revision of File:Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg is totally different to the three revisions before and should therefore become uploaded as a new version. Same with File:Presidential Seal of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg. What version is more accurate does not matter, just respect the COM:OW guideline. GPSLeo (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, if this is the case. All vectorisation by @Fenn-O-maniC and @Fry1989 should be uploaded because the vectorisation that they are justifying are completely different to the previous vectorisation on the file.
I would also like to reiterate that the executive branch of government vis-a-vis the country in question (Democratic Republic of Congo) has stated the official vectorisation which is used. The hyperlinks provided by @Fenn-O-maniC and @Fry1989 are unofficial and dubious.
I request you visit the stated official vectorisation, not creations designed to usurp the sovereign emblem of a country in Central Africa…
see: https://www.presidence.cd/detail-symbole/2 ManyemaKasongoDescendent (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have split up the Versions. And a final warning to all people involved: If you start such an edit war again you will become blocked form editing here. GPSLeo (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no evidence that the version used on the website linked by ManyemaKasongoDescendent is the "official" rendition. In fact, it would appear to be the opposite, and that whoever created the website on behalf of the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has chosen to "borrow" the vector version that has been on Commons since at least 2008. Fry1989 eh? 17:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So are we going to address the issue of a clearly improved file being reverted based solely on a source that very obviously leads right back to here, or not? Fry1989 eh? 23:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Fry1989[edit]

File:Presidential Seal of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg

This user has been involved in an edit war over File:Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg and File:Presidential Seal of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg. Whilst I welcome file protection of File:Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg, File:Presidential Seal of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg. doesn’t have a protection and @Fry1989 has reverted back to the unofficial vectorisation, contrary to official vectorisation as stated by the Democratic Republic of the Congo (see: https://www.presidence.cd/detail-symbole/2) whilst not providing an explanation for this incorrect reverts. I would also ask that the other file be protected as well, using its the version, and that @Fry1989 explain himself… ManyemaKasongoDescendent (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No reason to start a new thread, all can be discussed in the thread above. GPSLeo (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User King.godrat[edit]

King.godrat (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  seems to use Commons as a test, uploading and modifying images, including selfies, without reason. He even removed description templates. Pierre cb (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There may be a slight touch of foot fetishism in their uploads too. Wutsje 18:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I reported one of a minor to T&S. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've deleted all but one of the feet pics as copyvios (the remaining one is not a copyvio, I think, and it's in use and I don't know what to do with it). There are two other images, both of which I think are in scope. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that every other "A picture of the feet..." image they uploaded was a copyvio, I think it's safe to assume that the remaining one is a copyvio as well. The use of the image on fawiki is trivial (it's basically a gallery). Omphalographer (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I deleted that last one because of COM:GCSD#F10. Better safe than sorry. Wutsje 21:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not testing obvious duh Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur, the user appears not to be competent enough to edit Commons.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for a week, most files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yann: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:AWANGAHMADMULKLIFF[edit]

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

This appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Mulkliff. They've uploaded a number of useless PDF files with a description referencing User:Sultan Ahmad Mulk (another sock). Omphalographer (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose block these are not useless. They are government archives that are now public domain. Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For anyone who hasn't worked it out, Stanislov Patrick 473 is a disruptive vandal, and his remarks should presumably be ignored. - Jmabel ! talk 15:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for a week pending review and investigation, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reactivating complaint archived without Admin action[edit]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 105#Trying to get to something some admin can deal with was archived without any Admin action being taken. The complaint is clear and without Admin action the Users will just carry on as they have been doing. Mztourist (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mztourist: Thanks.
Pinging @Tm, Dvaderv2 in particular, but really this goes for anyone: it is rarely helpful to categorize narrowly based in complex reasoning about the provenance of an otherwise ambiguous photo. The photo is useless as an illustration of the narrow subject (while it might still be useful as an illustration of the subject of a broader category), so no one is really helped by this categorization. It can be helpful to explain in the description why we might know more than is evident in the photo, but (at the other extreme) it is absolutely counterproductive (producing only arguments!) to express this only in setting a category and leave out the reasoning entirely.
I won't say I've never done the equivalent myself (mostly on things like dating a photo based on the buildings visible in it), but I will say that when I've done this, I've always laid out my arguments carefully, and I've backed off if anyone can show anything like a possible flaw in my reasoning. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My time is precious and iam not waste my time with an user clearly did not knew what are the differences between an M16A1 and an XM16E1 but even so loves to waste other people time.
You claim, in the talkpage of File:UH-1Ds landing during Operation Bolling, September 1967.jpg that i "can't tell by looking at this picture whether they are XM16E1s or M16A1s, the same as in the other photos where I have raised this issue." Really?????
1 - You are talking of the 5 771 × 8 577 pixels image where only you do not see the clearly visible teardrop forward assist, xm16e1 boss, uncaged magazine release, three prong flash hider? But of course it is not an xm16e1.
2 - Or are you talking of the the image where only you cannot see the clearly visible teardrop forward assist and uncaged magazine release with the xm16e1 boss. Or are talking of the visible three prong flash hiders visible under the transparent condoms? except for you.
3 - Or are you talking of the Image labelled by the US Federal Government as an M16A1 and so demanded to know "explain why you (me) have categorised it as an XM16E1 rifle" and when i explained you admited that was in fact an XM16E1 (and implicitly showing that you do not know what is are the differences between an XM16E1 or an M16A1"..
4 - Or are you talking of one image of australian soldiers taken in January 2 1967 or another photo of australian soldiers taken in March 18 1966 were you demanded to know why to know why are those rifles XM16A1 when you can clearly see, in those two images, the teardrop forward assist and\or xm16e1 boss and\or uncaged magazine release and\or the three prong flash hider. This two cases are even worst as i asked you if knew when was the M16A1 standardized, was in M16A1 was only standardized in February 23 1967.
Well this clearly shows that you cannot distinguish between an XM16E1 and a M16A1 but remove Category:XM16E1 rifle and when reverted always demand to know why for no good reason.
For that reason and for continue to wasting other people times i am out of this new attempt on exerting revenge. Tm (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No-one objects to identifications, when those identifications are based on some reasonable evidence – as you've provided in some cases. A partial identification and a known date that limits the possibilities is fine too – no one is questioning these.
But what we aren't going to put up with is the continual edit-warring, and the attitude (just look at your post here!) that you're too important to have to explain yourself to the peasants. Because you're not. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please no personal attacks Trade (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tm: your response amounts to a bunch of arguments about specific photos, and absolutely no acknowledgement of what I, as an admin, called out as a problem. FWIW, I didn't "talk of" or do any of the things you are mentioning here. (Perhaps someone else did, but your comment follows mine, and doesn't ping anyone, so it appears to be addressed to me.) I stated a general principle: contentious matters like this generally don't belong in categories.
You are claiming that you are so expert that no one here can judge your work. That might be true, but insofar as it is, it also means that no one here can judge your claim to expertise, and we don't really have any reason to accept it on faith. - Jmabel ! talk 22:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW Jambel my initial remark were all directed at Mztourist, not you or your actions.
But, alas, Jambel in Wikimedia Commons i never claimed to be or not to be an expert in anything, either explicitly or implied.
I only show that Mztourist does not know what he was talking about or doing but that did not stop him from question others and removing categories and that, on the contrary of Mztourist, i provide proofs of what i said, edit and add .
To Andy Dingley. I tought that us the peasants had already discussed this images to death and that i have provided more than enough evidence to support my edits more than a month ago. So what royal now that is making "continual edit-warring" by reopening this closed discussion?
That is why i will not waste more of my time in this on revenge as well said by its title "Reactivating complaint archived without Admin action." Tm (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Jmabel for clearly stating the correct approach to categorisation. Tm it is notable that you have continually failed to justify why the rifles in File:UH-1Ds landing during Operation Bolling, September 1967.jpg are XM16E1s. Tm and User:Dvaderv2 unless the distinguishing features of an XM16E1 or an M16A1 are clearly visible don't add the category (also don't categorize pistols in holsters), its very simple. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jmabel I'm requesting a block of User:Tm for continued edit-warring of categories despite your clear instructions above. Following your instructions I returned to the various images where categories had been added and removed the weapon categories where the weapon is not clearly visible in the image and Tm then reverted those changes. The examples are: (1) my change [3] and Tm's revert [4], this image was discussed on the [Talk Page] that the gun has attributes of two different models, the XM16E1 and the M16A1; (2) my change [5] and Tm's revert [6], they claim that you can see the distinctive muzzle of an XM16E1, I don't believe the photo is clear enough to make that distinction; (3) my change removing categorisation of a pistol in a holster: [7] and Tm's revert [8] and (4) my changes [9] and Tm's revert [10]. Tm has completely ignored your instructions and clearly continues with their attitude that they are so expert that no one here can judge their work, only a block will prevent further disruptive conduct. Mztourist (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oh, dear. I hate doing this with someone who is often a good contributor, but, yes, I'll block Tm for a week at this time. - Jmabel ! talk 07:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done - Jmabel ! talk 07:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Mztourist (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, User:Tm has objected on their user page. I have no intention of replying there: they are repeating things they have already said, plus claiming Mztourist's actions here constitute "vengeance". If any other admin wishes to engage, feel free. - Jmabel ! talk 16:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stanislov Patrick 473[edit]

Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk · contribs)

Another of those miraculous new users who come from nowhere and dive immediately into complex arcana. I've no idea what's going on here, but it's nothing good. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur, their inappropriate edits include this, that, and reversions of the actions of authorized bots.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done I have blocked the user for a temporary period of 1 week, with the option to extend the block if disruptive editing continues. --TadejM (t/p) 14:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Seeing the amount of disruption, I extended the block. New account, and most edits are pure vandalism. Yann (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TadejM and Yann: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Patricminlooo[edit]

User:Patricminlooo , please check his uploads. he is naming files randomly and adding spammy(just random letters) descriptions. and, maybe copyvio files. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 17:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The combination of cryptocurrency logos, bank logos, and nonsense filenames is concerning - it leads me to suspect that the files may be getting used off-site in a phishing campaign. Omphalographer (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Right. Blocked indef., all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Face-smile.svg Thank you. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Yasmin Karachiwala[edit]

I deleted some of his tagged files and realized they were previously uploaded by User:Blu Advisory. Socks? --Mhhossein talk 20:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked Yasmin indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts and nominated one more logo for deletion. Taivo (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Boblstr[edit]

Uploading repetitive WP:NUDITY after repeated mass-deletions. Dronebogus (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*COM:NUDITY (not WP:NUDITY :-)). --SHB2000 (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Should be indef. if these files reappear. Yann (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Bebel2024[edit]

All of User:Bebel2024 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) uploads are copyvio. They are, in their own words, a "a 14yrs old autistic boy". Due to their disruptive edits in the Pt.WP (their home wiki) and their perceived "lack of competence" they were indef. blocked there. Their edits in the en.WP are also very problematic. I suggest a sysop to look into their uploads and also weight on the necessity of a block. Regards. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 02:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. I warned the user and will close a lot of DR-s. Taivo (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 15:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:PedroDuqueSantiago[edit]

Continued abuse of file revert despite warnings and a block -- H78c67c (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seeing this, I reblocked him indef. Clearly NOTHERE. Yann (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Jahidh56[edit]

User:Jahidh56 is keep adding personal photos, please take action. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Figub Brazlevic[edit]

User:Figub Brazlevic https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figub_Brazlevič , please block this account. it is not verified. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WHat do you mean by "verified" and which Commons policy do you think requires that? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
modern_primat presumably means that given that this is a the name of a well-known person, this account should exist only if it is verifiably that person. Which is true, but if someone wants to pursue it, it would seem that the place to start is a request for verification, not a block! - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:RevengerTime[edit]

RevengerTime (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Is a problematic user. He abuses Commons uploading all the time unfree files. Look at his talk page and latest uploads please. Other people have been blocked for much less. 186.175.229.250 02:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I warned this user. However some of their uploads were wrong tagged, as they are under a free license at the source. Yann (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you just please block this user already, after I receive a last warning. Hookmeupabit (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=765685384"