Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
Revision as of 17:02, 29 May 2014 by Sven Manguard (talk | contribs) (→Lx 121: Just to be clear, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the comment, if you make another comment like that one on this project, you ''will'' be blocked for it.)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

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.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.


User:Abderitestatos: repeatedly vandalisms, trolling, personal attacks, disruptive actions or what else ??

Abusive editor

User:178.7.237.121 has been using the Commons for 1 week, and has already become abusive [[1]]. Any help would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "abusive" as much as "doesn't understand the finer points of licensing". Some of his deletion nominations were good (and have been processed). Some were clearly off the mark (and have been processed as well), and some are not very clear cut. The IP is claiming that some photos licensed CC-BY-SA 2.0 (via Flickr) can't be licensed as such because CC licenses didn't exist when the works were created. While his reasoning is wrong (because works can be re-licensed), it is worth examining whether PD-art applies in the ones he spotted. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about the part where this editor said "your way of argumentation is stupid and shows that you do not have some basic understanding of Wikimedia. Your great knowledge might be needed for the photographs in this category: Category:Penis"? Magnolia677 (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I warned him. If he continues, then he can be blocked. Taivo (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a "him", Taivo. And: you may teach magnolia 667 what nonsense DRs are and why it would be better that others start DRs instead of magnolia 6677 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.7.237.121 (talk • contribs)

 Info IP blocked for 3 days to cool off. (Intimidation/harassment: [2] and [3]) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war with admin

W038 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

This user has been over-categorized his files and Túrelio left a message in his talkpage with a link to the guideline. Since then, the user has been replacing all categories in his files with Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I suggest someone to keep an eye on him, maybe he need to cool off. --Btmpnr01 (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Info IP blocked for 3 days to cool off. (unrelated to this case, made nonsense comments here) (Intimidation/harassment: [4] and [5]) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The files have been deleted by Taivo as requested by uploader. I don't think we'll see the user in question again here. Thanks for notifying! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

new sockpupet of user:rolandodeynigo

I think we have a new sockpupet of user:rolandodeynigo, who had been blocked per Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Retaux: user:Fleurdelysees. The new account has been created two days after the blocking of rolandodeynigo and has only made contributions on the same subjects as rolandodeynigo:

Kathisma (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Moved to CU: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/rolandodeynigo --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Here done. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

impostor of Conchita Wurst

Resolved

The new account ConchitaWurst (talk · contribs) is very likely an impostor (or just a fan) of Eurovision Song Contest 2014 winner Conchita Wurst. At the only other project, where the SUL account is active, the text on his user page en:User:ConchitaWurst is completely in croatian language. I propose to block the account for violation of username policy. --Túrelio (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, message left on talk page. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dispute with User:Orgio89

Could someone please mediate a dispute with User:Orgio89?

User is re-creating categories such as Category:Solar cell, Category:Solar car, Category:Technology development etc. after they have just been deleted, and overcategorizing files (such as File:Flea Hop HB-SIA - Solar Impulse.jpg‎ and File:Sunswift eVe 1.jpg).

My attempt at talking the problem through at User_talk:Orgio89 and my own talk page are not working and now I just see my edits reverted. Ariadacapo (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is kind of naive to make media files less categorized and less accessible to the public reach rather than sufficient usage of these crucial educational files. I am especially trying to add more categories on solar power related files/photos to promote green/renewable technology. But Ariadcapo was trying to limit the categories so consequently making those solar technology related files less accessible to people. I am assuming in WP the key condition is that more sharing is better than less sharing. Orgio89 (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in your talk page it is a commons rule. And changing it is not to be an administrator decission, rather a comunity decission. So if you want the rule changed, ask the community. Before it is changed, you should respect it. I suggest, you revert your edits. Ankry (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And could Ariadacapo please explain why you deleted my created categories of Category:Solar cell, Category:Solar car, Category:Technological development, Category:Solar technology that why these categories breaching WP policies or possibly disturbing public educational values?! Orgio89 (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I replied in your talk page. This is out of scope here. Ankry (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I tried to explain in your talk page,
I did not delete these categories. I proposed them for deletion without discussion because they obviously meet criteria for deletion and they were deleted by an admin almost immediately. An explanation for the deletion is left each time in a red frame on the page (such as on Category:Solar power plant that you also created).
I understand your frustration with the category system (I feel the same, and it is nowhere as flexible as a tag-based system). Nevertheless, please read about the way this project works, its history, its processes, before you go against other users. Refraining from lecturing contributors about sharing(!) or about their English level would also be good idea. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ankry and Ariadacapo. Overcategorization is bad. And deletion of empty categories does not need any discussion. Please revert your overcategorization. If not, somebody else will do that. Taivo (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+1. I have removed all invalid categories by this user and cleaned some worst overcat mess from their uploads; recreation or further editwarring will lead to a block. --A.Savin 10:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wiki vandalism

The following note was posted at the en:wp admin noticeboard with the same section title. Nyttend (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi admins, I just blocked a slew of editors (socks and maybe meats) on Casablanca. One of them (or one incarnation) is Totoytr, now indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account; they've also messed around on Commons a bit. Maybe someone who's also a Commons admin can have a look? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Totoytr blocked & vandalism reverted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lx 121

The recent conduct of Lx 121 came to my attention while I was looking through the undeletion requests page. Lx 121's conduct at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edward-furlong-mugshot-01.jpg was unacceptable, and so I went to his talk page with the intent of leaving a warning. At the talk page, however, I found a history of warnings for throwing around insults stretching back to 2009, indicating that Lx 121 has not heeded any of them. My first instinct was to tell him, in no uncertain terms, that if he made any further personal attacks, he would be blocked for no less than a month. I'm not sure if a final warning is a good idea though; this might have already passed the point where a block is warranted. Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Lx 121 has a long history of poor behavior/conduct and is clearly disinterested in heeding both talk page warnings and our rules. Not acceptable. -FASTILY 10:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(for the record, & wuth all due respect Fasilty & i have had "disagreements" in the past (links can be provided, upon request); we are on opposite sides of a number of policy issues. so bear that in mind, when considering their comments)Lx 121 (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently warnings don't help So I would agree with a block. I probably would have blocked him on the spot if I would have seen this comments earlier. If Lx 121 doesn't respond here I would see that as a act of bad faith. Natuur12 (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be minded to agree with Natuur12. The ball is in his court, if he does not respond here then a block may be the only way forward. LGA talkedits 11:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+1, if he does not respond here then we should block him. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


ALRIGHT; now the first thing that strike me here is how the conversation (here & elsewhere) is completely ignoring the original question of where the file in question SHOULD have been deleted, or NOT.

& whether the admin in question made a BAD CALL.

is it really more important to critique my style of commentary, than to consider whether i actually have a case?

because, unless the pd-government of california template is faulty, the photo was an obvious  Keep.

the user Binksternet, who nominated the above-mentioned file for deletion on spurious grounds, did so as a tactic to remove it from use on a wp/en blp. again, on the record @ commons & wp/en.

the person has been "camped out" on the Edward Furlong article for month, & has been systematically removing "unfavourable" material.

that point is not in serious dispute. i can throw up half a dozen links to the user's edit-history there, if anyone wants to debate it.

MOVING ON,

now, as regards the "case" against me;

please indicate which statements i have made that are untrue, unfounded, unreasonable, or in violation of commmons' policy?

& please provide citations to the relevant commons' policies?

i may not be "nice", but i stick to the facts of a case. if you can fault me on the substance of my comments (not "style", not formatting, not "i don't like it"), then i'll acknowledge my mistakes & retract any erroneous comments.

otherwise this is just more of the usual back & forth blockwars that happen @ commons; "i don't like you/don't agree with you/you insulted my friend, so you're blocked ha-ha"

& if you are going to block me, then make it a permanent ban & make it a SOLID case that will stand up on appeal all the way through the WM process.

if you dislike my style & formatting, in comments, then you have every right to do so. you write your comments your way & i'll write my comments my way.

&, as far as i can see from the complaints as presented thus far, this is largely a matter of STYLE; i don't use obscenities, i don't "call anyone names"; i present the facts & my analysis/opinion of them. nothing personal about any users, JUST their actions & their edit-history.

& if i'm going to be banned for violation mos-user comments, with my rogue use of formatting, & capitalization (in behind-the-scenes comments, NOT in "article-space"), then this is beyond a joke.

slap-on-the-wrist bans are pointless & petty; unless someone has a REAL CASE, it's not about the facts, or "justice", it's actually not even about making users "be nice" to each other, it's about who is "offended" & how well-connected they are.

among the many "commons-is-not" used in rule-spew, commons IS NOT a social network. judge users on their work, not on who you're friends with & like/dislike.

IF you can get a ban through the FULL WM procedure, with the case presented so far, then i'm done here.

i've contributed a hell of a lot here & to other WM project(s) [6], & if keeping productive editors isn't more important than petty fights over comment-style (& this is a matter of STYLE; i didn't use obscenities, i didn't "call anyone names"; i presented the facts & my analysis/opinion of them. nothing personal about any users, JUST their edit-history.)

if we're not allowed to point out when another user is making BAD DECISIONS, then the project & community is a FAIL.

open peer-review is one of the fundamentals of the wiki-process; without it, the quality of the work goes to crap.

meanwhile the number of usefully contributing editors @ WM continues to fall; & this petty crap, is exactly what's killing the wm projects.

the WM projects are losing contributors because the rules are hopelessly over-complex & the "procedures" for applying them are hopelessly inconsistent, & frequently mis-used.

NOT because people are "mean" to each other, in user comments.

it's also a waste of everybody's time; in the time it has taken me to compose this, i could have hot-cattd at couple of dozen items.

now, instead, i've wasted my time writing this, & i'm leaving commons with a negative opionion of the project, to do work elsewhere for the day.

ALSO; if we are discussing blocks for bad manners and/or personal attacks, i invite you to consider the case of User:Yikrazuul [7], who has a far longer & more "productive" history of acidulous comments directed @ other users.

i did in fact post any anu about him some time (several years?) ago.

in that case, the complaint was simply laughed off; "yikrazuul makes rude comments, no way!?"

if i'm due for a ban here, then this user is long OVERDUE.

if he's immune, then is should be as well.

either we use the same rules & standards for EVERYBODY, or we're just playing "clubhouse".

i look forward to a substantive discussion on these matters.

with all due respect,

Lx 121 (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.: since i have invoked his name, yikrazuul is almost certainly going to show up & (tl;dr) demand my immediate & permanent banishment. that's not a prediction, it's a weather forecast. hi yik. Lx 121 (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


BTW; just for reference-comparison, over @ wp/en where the "real" fight is on, over binksternet, me, & the edward furlong bio, banning me isn't even "on the table".

on the facts of the case "against me", presented here, thus far, ani (wp/en) wouldn't touch it.

in the discussions there, ban-threats were made, as always happens in heated user-disputes there & here, & when the rubber-hits-the-road nobody has a case.

if you're going to "nail" me here, make sure you have the policy to back it up? because i will appeal a petty, unjustified action ALL the way through the WM decision-review process, & i'll make sure to drag the deciding admin along with me.

& that's not a threat, legal or otherwise, that's how the procedure works @ WM.

again, i look forward to substantive discussion of this matter, & await the presentation of a proper case, with citiation to both my alleged violations, & relevant commons' policies.

again, with all due respect,

Lx 121 (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I didn't see anywhere in that comment anything that would indicate that you believe comments like "i do not know if this person is a 'paid' PR-hack, or just a deranged fan" were a mistake, or that you would refrain from making such comments again. I saw a lot of straw man arguments and attempts at deflection, but nothing that would indicate that you are not going to continue to make personal attacks. Just to be clear, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the comment, if you make another comment like that one on this project, you will be blocked for it. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring with user:YLSS

Dear friends, I do not like to enter into editwarring with anyone but somehow YLSS is compelling me. Take a look @ Revision history of "File:BSicon ugSTRq.svg". In the case of this file as well as many other files, (s)he has requested renaming where files with the requested names are already there for other files. When I turn down the requests on this ground, he undoes my action. Plus, I guess (s)he is a filemover and should act judiciously - if there is a genuine reason for renaming he can go ahead and do it self rather than placing dubious rename requests. --Muzammil (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are not dubious, nor are they for you. You guessed right that I am a filemover myself, so I only use those templates when only an administrator can move a file. So if you see a file in Category:Media requiring renaming that you can't move because you're only a filemover and not an admin, take a deep breath and realise that you don't have to do anything – someone else will do that for you. YLSS (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=125220896"