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

Again User:Finoskov

[edit]

Finoskov (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

After the end of his first blocking he continued his behavior, to a greater extent than before. I think he has not recognized his mistakes. He wrote a comment with his signature in a template. See here.

Last weekend I spent many hours correcting errors which he made in the Mulhouse Museum categories. I only did the decades from 1870 to 1930. This week he ruined the work. Of course, he did not engage in any discussion on any of the points.

Now he obviously tried to solve one of the problems with "of the Musée" instead of "in the Musée". But he still put these categories under categories "in museum". That cannot be right!

Two points:

  1. 20 Reverts. Last weekend I had made changes (from wrong to right) and written edit comments. He made reverts (from right to wrong) without comments. That doesn't work! Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. With a closer look: Often I removed the category in this museum. Sometimes he made exact revert, ignoring that some pictures were not made in this museum. Sometimes he added the category of the museum, ignoring that (example) Category:1920s automobiles of the Musée National de l'Automobile cannot be a subcategory of Category:1920s automobiles in museums because some pictures were not made in museums. I don't know if it's okay to press the revert button to make a hidden change. It looks like an attempt at deception for me. This must be multiple misuse of revert.
  2. He didn't move categories properly. He created new ones, moved the content from the old ones to the new ones, and made quick deleting requests on the old ones. Example: old Category:Panhard & Levassor Type X29 Sport 20 torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30 (chassis 8 156) and new Category:Panhard & Levassor 20 CV Sport Type X29 Labourdette torpedo (M.N.A.2213) 1920-30. He also simply blanked the category discussion page, see here. This carries the risk that the discussion page will be deleted together with the category. This must be misuse of blanking talk page and misuse of Commons:Rename a category. Other examples: 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, 1900s, 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s.

I request: A block for a longer period than the first time. If possible and usual on Commons: A ban for specific areas for a long time. Perhaps for the areas of creating categories, moving categories, renaming categories, emptying categories, suggesting for quick category deletions, changing main categories or subcategories, and reverts. Or generally for everything to do with vehicles or vehicle museums. Buch-t (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buch-t: I am sympathetic, but not all of the above edits look at all obviously wrong. For example, at [1]: what exactly is wrong with adding each of the following to Category:Alfa-Romeo type 8C 2,9 B biplace course (M.N.A. 1118)? Please reply under the respective bullet points for any where you think I have it wrong.
So for this edit, I see one pretty obviously correct change, one other that looks correct, one other that is not a well-named category but looks otherwise correct, and one that is, indeed COM:OVERCAT. If that is typical, this does not suggest high competence on Finoskov's part, but is not usually the sort of thing over which someone gets blocked.
It is really hard to go through a laundry list like the one you posted above and try to work out whether someone's edits or good, bad, or (as it appears from this one) somewhere in between. This took me over 5 minutes just to evaluate on edit in an area where I don't normally work and it came up "not great, not awful." I would much rather see you take 3-5 specific edits of his that you think are wrong and break them down like I did above. In other words: if this is what you want us to look at, please do the heavy lifting yourself instead of making an admin spend an hour on working out whether you are correct.
As for the category moves: yes, that is very wrong, and might merit a block all on its own, especially if he won't promise to stop. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I followed up on that last (about the category moves) at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Finoskov&diff=prev&oldid=973625389. - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will give more details of 3-5 specific edits tomorrow (European time). --Buch-t (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More details to the first 5 reverts.
I have visited the museum in Mulhouse and also the 3-month-exhibition in the museum in Kassel, Germany.
Remember: I wrote edit comments when I deleted wrong categories. He wrote nothing when he reverted me. --Buch-t (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Finoskov: all of this looks very wrong on your part, especially putting way too broad categories under particular museums that might have an exemplar.
Blocks are intended to be preventive, rather than punitive. If you promise to stop this now, and you do stop, I see no need for a block. If you persist, I would advocate either a 3-month block now, to be turned into a year-long block if you come back and do this again, or a complete topic ban from anything about automobiles. - Jmabel ! talk 18:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finoskov wrote on his talk page that he cannot understand your English words. --Buch-t (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Finoskov feels competent to override others' decisions about prepositions in English, but does not understand enough English to follow what I'm saying. Also apparently, he believes that the overhead of a cat redirect is something comparable to, for example, downloading images.
French is about my fifth or sixth language, which is to say I can read it moderately well, but certainly cannot express myself in it significantly better than a Google Translate rendition of my English. @Ruthven: I know you are quite comfortable in both English and French, can you possibly take over this situation, or let me know that you can't so I can look for someone else to ask? - Jmabel ! talk 08:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I translated your message. Hopefully, the pretext of not understanding English won't be used now. Yann (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yann for the translation. I find worrisome that Finoskov sees your message as an "attack", when it's just a warning about a behaviour. Jmabel, would a partial block on the categories ns suffice? Ruthven (msg) 14:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven and Yann: do what you think best. My request to bring in another admin was not strictly a language issue. After my entirely appropriate warning was described as vos attaques, and after what I agree was almost certainly a "pretense" of not understanding me, I was livid enough to impose a long, long block. I figured it should be left to someone else to handle this, because acting out of anger is not generally a great thing to do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look into the details of the case. I will do it later unless someone else block Finoskov first. Yann (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of moving categories Finoskov creates new ones tagging the old ones for deletion (I didn't count exactly, it might have been about 4000 categories). That is massive disruptive behavior because a) one cannot move the cat back if necessary and b) links pointing there from other projects are broken. Therefore I asked Finoskov in 2019 and again in 2023 to refrain from that, but they ignored it. Therefore I herewith request a block only for category namespace for one year. --Achim55 (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: , and this also goes for any other admin: it's two days later, obviously no one else is taking this on, and I'm tired of it dragging on. If it is left to me—and if this sits another 24 hours, I'm going to consider it left to me—it is going to be an indefinite block from category namespace. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Finoskov has not edited since December 23rd, so I don't know if he deliberately ignored our messages, or just took off some vacation. Yann (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: does that mean you are definitely taking this on, and I can "safely" let go? - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finoskov had the opportunity to write here, but did not use it. He wrote on his talk page. He did not write that he will be offline from ... to ... --Buch-t (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Minor edit because of the ArchiverBot. --Buch-t (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yousiphh

[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I always use licenses for uploaded files. The latest is no exception. The uploaded files from 2020 will not change my decision to add new files according to the Commons rules. Yousiphh (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yousiphh: You were unresponsive when you were asked: Which criterion in {{PD-Azerbaijan}} does it meet? How may we verify that?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As I mentioned in my Talk Page - I have a original scan from the Institute archives. They said it's old enough to ben in public domain. Yousiphh (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UsuarioFeliz33

[edit]

Taichi (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Locked globally by EPIC as LTA. --Achim55 (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:186.173.218.127 and other IP trolls

[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jim the Troll Fortress Character Lore.png for an example. I don't know who this user is, but they're an IP troll with dynamic IPs that decided for whatever reason that they had it in for me and continually makes idiotic remarks about me without provocation, and also when they get no response, because they probably have the satisfaction of assuming I see their trolling when I scroll through deletion requests. We wouldn't tolerate that kind of behavior on Wikivoyage, and would block every IP that continued going after a user. (They know I'm a musician, so derogatory remarks about musicians in general from them, as well as by using the initials IK, are directed at me.) You folks need to do the same thing, and the technical people among you should see if you can figure out how to block the range of IPs used by this troll. If you don't, would you fault me for unilaterally deleting abusive DRs from this troll? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this troll also posts rot about unemployed people and suggests I'm unemployed. You all need to start paying attention to their pattern of behavior, because it's become a long-term campaign of harassment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"idiotic remarks without provocation"?! How many times did you call those IPs "Troll" before they said anything about you? (I don't have enough time to count, sorry.) Idiotic remarks?! Personal attack. (Permitted when "you" make them.) See you never again. 186.173.218.127 23:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to Ivan in that DR is completely without context, and is blockable. If you're going to insult him, please limit it to discussions where he is insulting you as well. This is a warning. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Merci beaucoup. 186.173.218.127 00:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support a block for 186.173.0.0/16 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log) – nothing productive has come out of that range, and all the more with the latest insult towards Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This IP must be the same person: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brooklyn blizzard (25201507232).jpg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't accuse me of starting the California fires... 186.173.218.127 11:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done 186.173.0.0/16 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log) blocked for 2 weeks, as per SHB2000's suggestion. Yann (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mαrti

[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G. Wait, the only thing I wanted was to delete my user page. I don’t understand why I’m being reported as a malicious user. Honestly, I don’t get it. As I mentioned before, I just wanted to delete my user page to unify it with Meta, which is why I used the U1 parameter, as I read in the speedy deletion policies. That was all, really. I don’t know why I’m being reported as a malicious user. I apologize in advance for not knowing the procedure. In cases like this, my sincerest apologies, but that’s not the case. Mαrti (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mαrti: You do have two recent uploads that were deleted as copyright violations, File:Xavi (754866060790832) (1).jpg and File:Ed Maverick 6598952808742782.jpg, both from last month. I strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with COM:L before uploading any other files to Commons.
@Jeff G.: I am getting really tired of you bringing malformed deletion requests to this noticeboard. You've been told repeatedly, but I'll say it a final time: unless there is a high volume of malformed requests, including after the person in question has been told what they're doing wrong and how to fix it, malformed requests are not a blockable offense. And considering that the copyvios in question were a month ago, it's clear to me that you're just reaching to try to make this malformed request more of a big deal. Stop bringing these frivolous requests to this noticeboard. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: So COM:CSD#COM1 and COM:DP are no longer policies? Are policy violations no longer reportable here as adjuncts to other reports?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? I never said they weren't policy. I said malformed DRs aren't a blockable offense unless there's a high enough volume of them to actually disrupt the DR process, and the problem has continued after the user has been told they're doing it wrong and how to do it correctly. Those are very different things. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: COM:CSD#COM1 is a criteria for speedy-deletion, not for blocking someone. Feel free to CSD' tag any such DRs that "are corrupted or incorrect and cannot be fixed, or redundant DRs for pages that are eligible for speedy deletion" as the guideline says. Simply deletion policy is all about the processes - and guides what should be deleted and how. At COM:BP#Use is the guide to what merits a block. Give this a read. It nowhere says "malformed DRs are an offense". Regards, Aafi (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Please define "high enough volume". As precedents, ColorfulSmoke was blocked 17:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC) by Mdaniels5757 with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page", pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 29#ColorfulSmoke and was ultimately blocked indefinitely, and Alex Neman was blocked 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC) by Yann with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page" pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 34#Alex Neman, Mommy Debby was blocked 20:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC) by Jmabel for "Vandalism: + repeated incomplete deletion requests. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=957080538#Mommy_Debby".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Mαrti's local user page and the malformed request page are deleted. No further action needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danigre64

[edit]

Danigre64 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Exhibitionist Dronebogus (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yohhh

[edit]

Yohhh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is trying to impersonate MGA73 with bogus LC tags, see Special:Diff/981887315. Günther Frager (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Günther Frager: That link is now hidden. I notified that user for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. User is indefinitely blocked. Taivo (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Sir

[edit]

User:RAMKRIPALYADAVGO Please sir unblock Please forgive my mistake, I will be careful in future, I am new here. Yohhh (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not. You hare at least two years old and are playing the sock game. But even your newer accounts are also engaged in all sorts of inappropriate edits themselves. You are wasting our time. DMacks (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked this account. You still have talk page access on your main account to make an unblock request. Creating a new account for making unblock requests is not needed and will result in immediate block of the account. GPSLeo (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. User is indefinitely blocked. Taivo (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naliloam

[edit]

Very strange behaviour. Multiple useless cosmetic edits. Maybe the same person as Nozama1180. Юрий Д.К 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. User is warned. Taivo (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simotissir

[edit]

Every single one of Simotissir (talk · contribs)'s uploads is unencyclopaedic and low-quality, and most of them bear a title with no relation with the subject. That user simply misuses Commons as a blog. Edelseider (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done final scope warning given —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 22:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Matrix: @Jmabel: Simotissir has not understood the warning, or is giving us the finger, because he has uploaded obvious nonsense/copyvio today (January 12). Edelseider (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done indef —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 19:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:SquarePortrait / User:ArionStar

[edit]

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

Disruption. Sockpuppet? See ArionStar sockpuppet at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates, and Category:Sockpuppets of ArionStar. -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

rolledback edits to FPC, I can rollback your talk if you want, not much else I can do other than ping @Krd. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 05:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking the user, perhaps? I've filled a CU request. -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Basile Morin: Alachuckthebuck isn't an admin and can't block accounts. I, however, can. And did. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, The Squirrel Conspiracy, for the notification and useful maintenance. -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nelsito Maduro, revenge DRs after their own copyrighted maps got deleted

[edit]

Nelsito Maduro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone please stop this madness? Nelsito Maduro is a on a hefty DR revenge spree after they were caught in uploading copyrighted maps, still continuing despite these great and helpful comments by User:Enyavar on their talk page [2]. Here is the previous ANI thread about Nelsito Maduro, in which they kept attacking me for nominating their copyrighted maps for deletion [3] HistoryofIran (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done three day block, will be extended to 1 month if they continue —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Matrix! HistoryofIran (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their responses on their talk page are not encouraging. I wouldn't be surprised if they wind up indeffed before this is all over. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Three days is very lenient. I would have blocked this user for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Baginda 480 / User:2402:1980:8249:402A:522:505:D004:CCC6

[edit]

I received an request to upload Flickr files from a User with an IP address here: User talk:Ooligan#Hello. I see this IP address are currently blocked by @Achim55 with the blocking edit summary stating, "block evasion." - Special:Contributions/2402:1980:8249:402A:522:505:D004:CCC6. See also: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Baginda_480 [4].

Apparently, another User @Bookish Worm and I have been solicited to help in "block evasion," if I understand this correctly. The Commons block expires on January 16th - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:Baginda+480 [5].

I'd say let them go. Extending the block would not help and I've still a bit AGF in stock. I think they've learned their lesson regarding copyright. I blocked several IPs not primarily because of their edits on cats, files or galleries but because of their persistent canvassing. A user from Malaysia who has only one topic: Mahathir Mohamad (see history, also of Category:Mahathir Mohamad and subcats). If there will appear copyvios again, User:Baginda 480 could be blocked again, but my belly says that it won't be necessary, hopefully. --Achim55 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I respect your view. I wanted to bring this to the attention of the voluteers here. I hope your "belly" is correct! Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blackcat

[edit]

en:On December 24th, User:Blackcat replaced Category:Romania national football team with a redirect (the original category is now a redirect) and accused User:YarikUkraine, who returned the category to its original location, of vandalism. After my request to show on what specific community decision the decision to rename was made, Blackcat began other renamings (Azerbaijan, American Samoa, Angola). I asked a member to open a discussion for possible renaming of such categories, but then started even more extensive renaming without any discussion (Democratic Republic of the Congo, Belarus, Gabon, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone). I ask the Commons community to return the original names for these categories and start a discussion about the naming issue.

ru:24 декабря User:Blackcat заменил Category:Romania national football team редиректом (сейчас изначальная категория является редиректом) и обвинил вернувшего в изначальное расположение категории User:YarikUkraine в вандализме. После моей просьбы показать на каком конкретно решении сообщества было принято решение о переименовании Blackcat начал другие переименования. Я попросил участника открыть обсуждение для возможного переименования подобных категорий, однако после этого начал ещё более масштабные переименования без каких либо обсуждений. Прошу сообщества Викисклада вернуть исходные названия для этих категорий и начать обсуждение вопроса о наименовании. Mitte27 (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming is an user's feature, not admin's. That apart, the name scheme is consistent with "association football". I don't undersstand what the user is complaining about, since their behaviour is disruptive. -- Blackcat 12:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where was the renaming of national teams discussed? Mitte27 (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Protecting a page is an admin's feature. Well very well (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UPD: User:Blackcat continued renaming - Zimbabwe, Cyprus, Guinea-Bissau. Mitte27 (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitte27: , so what? It's 7 years that these categories are consistent with the principal name scheme "association football". Now can we safely assume you stop with this complaining? -- Blackcat 13:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A significant portion of these categories were named without the word "association". I have already asked you twice to open the renaming procedure to reach a consensus... Mitte27 (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless. It's just instruction creep. -- Blackcat 14:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. At least three different users have explicitly shown their disagreement with your actions, so you must no longer consider your actions consensual. Well very well (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's years that is the scheme. If you want to change open a CfD . -- Blackcat 01:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If half of the categories used one scheme and other half another that means there was no explicit consensus at that moment. You should've opened a discussion to find out whether there is one still. Well very well (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless. It's not "half", more thqan 90% use the term Association football, and just because the switch was slow. The main category is association football, and in the past 7-8 years the names have been switched by several users to give consistency in all the subcategories (also here, here, here. and so on). So, deal with it, association football is the way it is for now. The renaming will go on. If you think it must be changed, open a CfD and discuss it. -- Blackcat 00:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blackcat has also protected the Romania redirect page immediately after undoing YarikUkraine's rename — in 7 months after that rename has happened. Well very well (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no admin issue here, but it would be good to have consistency on "national football team" vs. "national association football team". Right now the members of Category:National association football teams are quite inconsistent on this.
As an involved party, Blackcat might not have been the best person to protect this one way or another and head off a wheel war, but it should be discussed, a consensus should be reached, and until that happens there is no point to people moving it back and forth between two roughly equally valid names. - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: , I protected the cat for the strictly needed time to cool down the issue, then I quickly removed the protection. For the rest, I simply ensured consistency of the category tree, a path started almost six or seven years ago, and not by me. Thus this controversy is pointless in my eyes. -- Blackcat 19:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I protected the cat for the strictly needed time to cool down the issue
Haven't it cooled down in those 7 months before? Well very well (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User الشيخ ياسر الدوسري

[edit]

الشيخ ياسر الدوسري (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is uploading a multitude of images flagged as unsourced or copyrighted, of which a great numbers have already been deleted. Pierre cb (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I warned the user. Taivo (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Militum professio scriniarii

[edit]

Militum professio scriniarii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Worried about another users uploads

[edit]

I am worried that Jmjm0110 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has uploaded many photos that are not actually theirs of Ruston High School. They are all listed as own work. I've asked them on their talk page about it. Should they all be tagged? Could someone take a look please? Ktkvtsh (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a few DRs. The photographs could be public domain but that's a matter that requires due diligence. Abzeronow (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. What is a DR?
At first I thought they could have been included in the application to list the school on NRHP, but they would have been black and white, so the photos don't belong the the National Park Service. Ktkvtsh (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion Request. I see now. Thank you. Ktkvtsh (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktkvtsh: I just wanted to direct your attention to COM:Glossary, which I find very useful, especially for abbreviations and jargon. Whenever I run across one that is new to me (or that I notice is undocumented) I try to add it. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Thank you so much. I'm going to add it to my Useful Stuff list. Ktkvtsh (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aornamras1982

[edit]

Aornamras1982 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has repeatedly uploaded copyright violations despite being previously warned. --Ovruni (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week. All files already deleted. Yann (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FireBreathMan

[edit]

FireBreathMan (talk · contribs) has spent a few months making deep reverts (many files they are editing have not been edited since the 2000s) to maps that contain Serbia/Kosovo, disrupting all the improvements that have occurred in between. Even for files where the specific change they want might make sense, their specific fixation creates much more significant issues. They have twice edited File:Europe polar stereographic Caucasus Urals boundary.svg in a way that shifts the boundary away from the Caucasus, which is per the title the entire point of the image. They reverted File:European Union Serbia Locator (with internal borders).svg and File:European Union Kosovo Locator.svg for reasons that are apparently so minor I can't see them, but by doing so readded the United Kingdom to the EU map. This is after a previous series of similar edits, which I raised on their talkpage in December. CMD (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RenatoGar

[edit]

RenatoGar (talk · contribs) has been making attacks and false accusations against me in the Village pump (see here), also spreading falsehoods and seeking to involve other users into a conflict against me. Until now I had avoided intervening in the Village pump discussion because I did't want to fuel [more] the conflict and because of how conflictive this user is being, but I'm tired to see that he maintains public defamation against me.

He is accusing me of having falsely made an arbitrary transfer, when I clearly explained him the circumstances in my discussion to clear up misunderstandings. I explained that the editing summary was not saved and I explained what source I was using. In this case use an official heritage source (here). But the user RenatoGar told me that the main name in the source was not correct, and provided other official sources (as you can see here). I realized my mistake, and I corrected it, acording to those sources provided by him. I did not like his bad manners and I warned him not to write to me again on any topic. Far from leaving me alone, he went to village pump to defame me, accusing me of ignoring him and other things that have nothing to do with the issue.

I would like to point out that this user has had virtually no activity on Commons until a few days ago, and that he is clearly bringing up conflicts he has had with other persons outside Commons and turning this into a kind of crusade (see this and this). Even user @Jmabel: tried to reason with him, without success. CFA1877 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Taking this to ANU is a needless escalation of a conflict that appears to be coming to its natural conclusion. Nothing has been said as far as I can tell that warrants disciplinary action. Taking the discussion to the Village Pump after getting nowhere on your talk page is a pretty normal and (depending on the nature of the conflict) appropriate move, in this case it was to ask for community input on a change you had made that they wanted to revert. That's what the Village Pump is for. And regardless how you feel about their attitude, they haven't taken any actions on their own that they haven't gotten support for from other Commoners. The category name is still in Spanish.
Their first edit(s) on Commons were to make a category for an Aragonese church using its Aragonese name, which you then changed to Spanish, which was the source of the conflict. They have a lengthy edit history on other Wikiprojects (Special:CentralAuth/RenatoGar), noting his lack of an edit history on Commons without any of that other context strikes me as an attempt to undermine his credibility. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ReneeWrites, dont use that template on any admin noticeboard unless a user has ben blocked at AN/V or AN/U. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 22:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the template and switched it for a regular comment one. Saw other people use it in the past so I figured it was appropriate in that context. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks by Charlesjsharp

[edit]

Charlesjsharp (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Attacks against me

[edit]

It is with deep regret that I bring forward this case but I feel that I today have no other alternative anymore.

Since my very first day on FPC up to this day, I have been subject to multiple attacks by Charlesjsharp. Many of these attacks may look insignificant at first glance but the accumulation of these attacks shows an agressive pattern that this user adopted against me. Moreover, things escalated recently and I have the feeling that this user is also trying to tarnish my reputation. I can no longer accept this and I am therefore forced to open this ANU thread.

Here are multiple examples of these attacks on my FPC nominations :

  • Example 1 : basically saying he thinks his pictures are better than mine.
  • Example 2 : basically calling me a liar and saying I am inventing bird behavior and that I should go delete my comment.
  • Example 3 : opposing my nomination on the ground that he thinks that his pictures are better than mine.
  • Example 4 : opposing my nomination on the ground that he thinks his pictures are better than mine and also saying that my nomination "can't even compare" with his picture.
  • Example 5 : responding in a unpolite way, giving more links to pictures made by him that he thinks are better than mine.
  • Example 6 : saying my image was horrible.
  • Example 7 : opposing on the ground that he thinks that his picture is better than mine. Also, he is publicly calling me as a liar (his claim is completely false). This is absolutely unacceptable to me. Featured pictures are made to comment on the picture and not to try to publicly tarnish another's person reputation. This is an important escalation of the attacks.
  • Example 8 : inviting people to boycott or to oppose to my picture on the ground that I would have too many flamingo featured pictures. Not commenting on the picture, only commenting on the photographer.

Here are also examples on my VIC nominations :

  • Example 1 : accusing me of having written a false description.
  • Example 2 : ungrounded oppose where he says a picture of extremely low resolution of 458x604 pixels (0.2 MP), 60 times less than the nomination, would be better than mine.

These attacks against me have not gone unnoticed and I received this e-mail from a user that also saw them. I will not reveal the name of this user to respect his/her privacy (and because that message wasn't public) so the following screenshot has it's username censored : screenshot link.

I tried reaching out to Charlesjsharp on his talk page to tell him that I feel attacked by his behavior and I asked him to not do it anymore. I also warned him that I considered the situation serious enough to justify an ANU thread in case of new behavior. Instead of apologizing he putted all the blame on me by saying that I would be unable to accept criticism. I accept, welcome and thank constructive criticism but I can't accept childish behavior like "my pictures are better than yours" and publicly calling me a liar as he did multiple times. This latter behaviour is particularly unacceptable to me. Also he publicly accused me of insulting him, which I never did (see my response in previous link). This is again an absolutely unacceptable new attack against me that I will not tolerate and constitutes a new escalation. This has to stop.

Attacks against other users

[edit]

I have not been the only person attacked by this users and many other people also got targeted by him. Here are some examples :

  • El Golli Mohamed also went under attacks by Charlesjsharp : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 . Unfortunately El Golli Mohamed responded in an inappropriate way and was sanctioned for it. After that, Charlesjsharp kept reminding everyone on FPC and VIC that El Golli Mohamed was temporaroy banned, tarnishing the reputation of El Golli Mohamed : 1, 2, 3, 4
I think this behavior is disruptive and very inappropriate as instead of focusing on the image Charlesjsharp tried to destroy El Golli Mohamed's reputation.
  • ArionStar was recently banned from Wikimedia Commons and found a new home in the en wiki version of FPC. Eventhough ArionStar behavior on Wikimedia Commons was inappropriate, he didn't deserve to be constantly reminded on his nominations that he was banned from Wikimedia Commons. 1, 2, 3 Here again, Charlesjsharp tried to tarnish another user reputation instead of judging the nomination as it's supposed to be on FPC.
  • Charlesjsharp also opened many ANU complaints against other users which is again an agressive behavior :
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Many users also testified or commented on Charlesjsharp attacks and disruptive behavior :

  • Written testimony from another FPC user : "I just want to say that I really admire how you endure Charles’ attacks on the Featured picture candidates (FPC) page with endless patience and always with constructive answers. For a long time Charles has dominated wildlife photography on the FPC page with his shots, tolerating only the photos by Ivar and JJ Harrison with a forced smile. When Poco a Poco started to nominate diving photos in 2021 (or so), Charles fought against them fiercely; they got better, but in the end Poco turned again to other subjects. But now you are seriously endangering Charles’ dominance, and this seems to drive him crazy. At least this is my explanation for his recent very patronizing, often odd and always negative comments on any wildlife FP nominations." ;
  • Written testimony from Wolverine XI : "This conduct is typical of Charlesjsharp, who has a lengthy history of getting into arguments with many users over remarks like the ones above. He is quick to refer individuals to ANU for trivial issues while failing to see his own flaws. Sure, he may be a valuable contributor to the Wikimedia project, but he should really take more care when posting here. Accusations of legal malpractice are a serious matter that should not be made or taken lightly. I believe it's about time that this behavior is finally dealt with" ;
  • Complaint from Jeff G. : Reasons for reporting: Long history of argumentative tone, as seen and mentioned above in #User:A.Savin." ;
  • Complaint from El Golli Mohamed : "Support A block for two weeks. Charlesjsharp attacked me on a lot of my nominations on FPC to try to push me down" ;
  • Complaint from A.Savin : " Support a block for libelous comments, and per all above." ;
  • Complaint from Bodhisattwa : complaint about Charlesjsharp trying to rally many users to vote against his picture for presumably misleading votes, which was not at all the case ;
  • Yann testimony on Charlesjsharp behavior and the fact that Charlesjsharp attacks others : "Pdanese's writing is not nice, but your reviews are often not nice either. If you don't want to be attacked, do not attack others." ;
  • Yann testimony : "Your reviews go much beyond "criticisms of images". While you may not cross the limit, they are often borderline. Even negative criticism should make the receiver feel that something has to be learnt from the critics. But your critics often create bad feelings. If you make them without that intent, then you have a problem" ;
  • Chris.sherlock2 also testified of the problematic behavior of Charlesjsharp : "You might like to consider why a page worth of pithy comments about yourself is considered an attack on yourself. If you are offended by this page, then you might want to seriously think about your own pithy comments and how they would potentially be seen as attacks on those your comments are directed towards. You might open yourself to scrutiny. Obviously the page should be deleted, but a bit of self reflection might show your own behaviour is at times problematic." ;
  • W.carter testimony : "Yes, you are a true expert at keeping your acidic reviews just on the right side of what is possible without getting yourself reported, but your reviews and comments nevertheless create a toxic atmosphere on FPC. I'm not surprised that someone finally had enough. Unfortunately, when someone has "had enough" it's easy to get carried away by that emotion, and it will blow back at them instead" ;
  • And there are also many ANU complaints against this user. Here are some :

Admin actions requested

[edit]

The attacks against me and against other users creates a toxic atmosphere that is disruptive to the Wikimedia Commons project. There were times where I considered stopping contributing on Wikimedia Commons because of this. I wouldn't be surprised if other users stopped contributing because of that. This might actually be the case for the talented photographer El Golli Mohamed that stopped contributing after his issue with Charlesjsharp.

Wikimedia Commons needs to have a welcoming and friendly atmosphere free of personal attacks or agressivity.

Charlesjsharp has been warned for years by many users that his behavior was considered as attacks (see quotes above). He was invited to self reflect on his behavior but never changed acting like he did for many years.

He even received a formal warning by a Wikimedia administrator asking him to not accuse people of wrongdoings. Four users requested sanctions against Charlesjsharp.

Despite all this - and in violation of the formal warning he received -, he recently attacked me again by calling me a liar and accused me of insulting him, which is completely false.

Comments, warnings and even an admin formal warning have proven to be insufficient to stop this user's behavior. I think that only a proper sanction might allow this user to reflect on his behavior and to stop his aggressive attitude that is damageable to the Wikimedia project and to new users.

In view of the above I kindly request the following admin actions :

  • 1) Temporary Block this user for the time you see fit.
I suggest a period of 1 to 3 months. This should give him time to consider his past behavior and motivate him to not repeat that behavior.
  • 2) Forbid him to interact for a period of 1 year on my nominations and on files by me nominated by other users.
I will of course do the same as long that he keeps doing it too. Only exception: if me or any picture of mine is mentioned directly or indirectly on a page then I reserve the possibility to answer.

Thank you for your understanding. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all users that were active on the latest ANU case regarding this user: Jeff G., Rhododendrites, Matrix, Adamant1, Red-tailed hawk, Charlesjsharp, El Golli Mohamed, A.Savin, Gbawden, Wolverine X-eye, Jmabel, Yann -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=984273780"