Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
Revision as of 00:58, 1 July 2019 by 191.240.217.67 (talk) (→‎Delete user page)

Latest comment: 5 years ago by AshFriday in topic Rodrigo.Argenton

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU

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

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

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


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


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


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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 (index)

Note

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

myexbackcoach.com / Lee Wilson spam

Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

Three separate users have recently uploaded stock images with text relating to "limerence". The descriptions of these images have all contained links promoting "myexbackcoach.com". The owner of that site is a guy named Lee Wilson, who has a background in SEO. Given that, I suspect they aren't done yet, so it would be nice if the web site could be added to a black list. Since it is difficult to imagine that there will ever be an image which can illustrate the concept of "limerence", perhaps File:limerence.jpg and File:limerence.png could be blacklisted?

Accounts involved:

Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Comment: File:Limerence.png: Clear case of DW w missing source. Google doesn't find it but Yandex and TinEye have a lot of hits. Original image seems to be from shutterstock. In addition clear case of spam, linking to the same web address. Here indirectly by one more hop via yt. --Achim (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done: File deleted and users blocked per spam only accounts. Btw: Registrant's info @ publicdomainregistry.com/whois is hidden via privacyprotect.org. --Achim (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Achim55: Thanks. The latest account is User:Limerthing089. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done, thanks for notifying. --Achim (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Achim55: And now User:Dayfater. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done. --Achim (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Achim55: Thanks. The newest account is User:Honeyshahq. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
And look - here's one from 2017: File:Get your ex girlfriend.png! World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
  Done for both. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Just for fun, here's an even older one from a different "relationship expert": File:How-to-get-your-ex-back-tips.gif. This one is too simple to be copyrighted, but the link to the spammy domain was left (even though it wasn't the actual source). I fixed it. Looks like Lee Wilson just borrowed his shtick form someone else. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
And one more, from 2017: File:Get.png. Looks like spammers infested Commons long ago. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Achim55: Here's the newest: File:Limerence cure.png. And some bonus spam from the same uploader: File:Protein Powder.png. (True to form, the latter is someone else's work, being a cropped and rotated version of File:Hemp cacao nibs.jpg) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done, thanks for pinging. --Achim (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reneh3790

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Reneh3790 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

At Own collages with OWN PHOTOS Reneh3790 says quite clearly his collages are made up of their own photos. Generally I'd just give you a {{End of copyvios}} (which I already had) and call it a day. You couldn't be bothered to enter author information in UploadWizard, well, that happens, here's a warning and do better next time. Purposefully claiming your uploads are really really really own work, that's another thing.

I call your bluff and raise 200.

File:Collage Ciudad de Quetzaltenango.jpg

File:Villa Nueva Guatemala - Collage.jpg

File:Collage Guatemala City.jpg

File:Collage Guatemala City.jpg can now actually be kept (I cropped the all rights reserved image and added the sources), but obviously this ain't no own work. We will never be able to trust any "own work" claim from this user. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @JoKalliauer, Patrick Rogel. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
I agree with @Alexis Jazz: , and I do not trust Reneh3790's rigorous own-claims, but I'm feeling to inexperienced (in user-problems) to suggest anything.
There might be one/two >>Own collages with OWN PHOTOS<< that's true, and therefore claims that (s)he is right at this one collage. But I do not looked that much into it as Alexis. But it is quite clear that several/most uploads are not Self-photographed .
Anyhow, maybe if all doubt pictures (s)he uploaded get deleted, we might believe his/her warning and (s)he might won't upload anything again (even without blocking).
Also blocking seems reasonable to me, but if we expect no (illegal) Media will get uploaded anymore, I do not see any need/sense of blocking him/her. But if something happens again it is then even more obvious.
I think the Deletionrequest (DR) is important and I personally would wait till it is decided, even-though the DR seems obvious to me.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 15:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Blocking is preventative, not punitive. Reneh3790 has not uploaded any files since the mass nomination and the final warning on 17 June, and received only a single copyvio notice before that date. Given that copyvios have currently stopped, and that they have implicitly retired, we don't seem to have adequate evidence/basis for a preventative block. Indeed, a final warning was just issued; it would be bizarre then to block when no copyvios have been uploaded subsequent thereto. Block if and when another copyvio is uploaded. Эlcobbola talk 16:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Elcobbola: more copyvios would obviously be a reason to block. The issue here is: say that Reneh3790 uploads some more photos, maybe with metadata this time. Even if we find no hard proof they are copyvio, we'd pretty much have to delete them anyway (unless we get OTRS permission I guess) because the user is known to outright lie about authorship. Well, as long as they stay retired I suppose it won't matter. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Generally, at any given time, a substantial portion of the images in Category:Copyright violations are ones for which the uploader has claimed "own"--an identical outright lie. We don't block these users until they demonstrate a failure to respond to appropriate warning. This is because "blocks are a last resort." (COM:BLOCK) Reneh3790 has effectively received only one indication (!!!) of a problem--a copyvio nomination on 25 November 2018 (Reneh3790 had not edited since 13 June 2019, and all other notifications came on on 17 June 2019)--and has not uploaded a copyvio since the final warning. Until we have evidence that the final warning (the "second to last resort") is being disregarded, we do not need the last resort of a block. Эlcobbola talk 16:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
So I would close it here for now and wait for the next uploads
  1. If it is a correct upload: Great
  2. If it is a copyright-violation: According to @Elcobbola and Alexis Jazz: this will most likely lead to a block
  3. if it is unclear: It is in my opinin Reneh3790's "work" to gain trust again, and therfore without Commons:OTRS this will/should lead at least to a DR.
On User_talk:Reneh3790 we have a link to this page, and therfore if something happens again this disussion will be "exhumed"/found again.
I think we should write this conclusion onto their talkpage, that they know it's there buisness to gain trust again, and only obvious (with complete sources/permissions) Media will be accepted.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 16:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@JoKalliauer: sounds reasonable. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Elcobbola: a substantial portion of the images in Category:Copyright violations are ones for which the uploader has claimed "own"--an identical outright lie.
No. Just no. Dropping some files on UploadWizard and mindlessly clicking "next" is bad, but not nearly as bad as going to the talk page of someone who tagged your files for deletion and typing out the words "why don't you let me upload my OWN Photos I am taking.", knowing full well this is false. Is this really the same to you? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Reneh3790's comments were about the collages. It is entirely possible they think cropping the source images makes the crops theirs ("OWN PHOTOS") and that combining those crops into collages makes the compilation theirs ("Own collages"). This would me an honest mistake from ignorance of derivaitve works, which is very common. Your comparison is disingenuous, and your comments are ridiculous (a false claim of "own" is equally disruptive whether done deliberately or mindlessly--a copyvio is a copyvio, and knows not intent.) Эlcobbola talk 17:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Elcobbola: I'm all for playing devil's advocate, but even I wouldn't try to defend this one. (at least not with your strategy) You even try to turn this on me, calling my comparison "disingenuous" and my comments "ridiculous". Are you for real? You say "Reneh3790's comments were about the collages". Well that would have been an excellent defense, were it not for the fact Reneh3790 said "why don't you let me upload my OWN Photos I am taking". Exactly how does one take a collage? And btw, Patrick Rogel had only tagged the three collages which I analyzed here. So that's what he's claiming to be the author of. And you make no difference in intent? Even when the act is identical, intent determines consequences. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 20:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

DRIS92 vs. Hanooz

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

DRIS92 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Removes files from the deletion request. Hanooz 11:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@DRIS92: Do not remove anything from a deletion request. You can mention which files are OK, according to you, eventually with <s></s>. And do not add comment in the talk page, just add them at the bottom of the DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Yann: This is one of the files that DRIS92 removes from the deletion request. I provided another resource of this file here before their edit wars. Hanooz 11:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Yann: This is one exemple of false informations Hanooz. He claimed that the photo published elsewhere (in non-free websites) but the source exist in page is {{https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/media/1394/07/21/887398/%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%AD-%D8%AE%D8%B7-%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A8%D9%88%D9%87-%D8%A7%DA%98%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D9%BE%DB%8C%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%AA%D9%87-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%AC%D8%B1/photo/1%7Cthis}} at bottom of site is written "All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License."

Hanooz (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Delition Request based on false information deletion request --DRIS92 (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@DRIS92: Please do not strike other people's writings. You can vote on the DR page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

WLP socks and disruptive uploads

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  1. FatGayWhore (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
  2. Cracked2345 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
  3. Sikderonline (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
  4. Sparx_The_Fox (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
  5. Samuel Siddiqui (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

These accounts are disrupting the WLP campaign. Suggest blocks and nuke uploads. @Pharos: FYI, and thanks to Hmxhmx for keeping their eyes open. @Green Giant: you may be interested in taking a deeper look for relationships to LTAs for one or more of these as highly likely socks for users with a fixation on LGBT+ disruption. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for reporting them. I have locked all five from editing plus a sleeper at SamSiddiqui, and globally blocked their underlying IP addresses for a month each. Please feel free to drop me a line if there is more disruption. --Green Giant (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Орфорак

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Recreates deleted content just out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done. The second block is for a month. Taivo (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Obakeng-electrobux

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Out of scope images and copyvios, no useful edit. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done - Эlcobbola talk 17:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Meninas sereias

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

  Done Last warning sent, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Terminature

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done Blocked for 7 days. --Mhhossein talk 14:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Lipeh Spanic

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done Blocked by Didym. Yann (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Humayon Ahmed Emon

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please block Humayon Ahmed Emon (talk · contribs). Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done Indef., as sock of Srp Humayon Ahmed, all pages deleted. Yann (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Verdy p

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

User:Verdy p introduced [1] a very major change to {{Lang-VP}} on 19:13, 25 June 2019‎. Next day, I opposed with this change by opening [2] a thread on the template talk page. Their statements are contradictory, and they do not respond to my suggestions (using the 6 official languages of UN). Instead, they just undo [3] [4] every edit I make on the template. Their block log indicates [5] they have recently been blocked for disruptive editing. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done Blocked for a month (3rd block), edit on template reverted. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • I’m not a Verdy fan, nor here nor in the other two unrelated online projects I had the misfortune to cross paths with him in the past two decades, but one month (as opposed to, say, three days) seems unreasonably long. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Their previous block period for disruptive editing was one week, and it apparently did not work. It makes no sense to reduce the block period for commiting the same offence, and then expect it to work this time. IMO, the period of one month is perfectly proportionate and appropriate. 4nn1l2 (talk)
  • This is a content dispute between two users where we see one of them posting negative insinuations about another, additionally harassing them on user talk: Verdy_p. Yann supported a friendly party with his block and rollback privileges – should we expect anything else? Of course, a sysop bold enough to overturn Yann will earn high esteem from me. Or, as an alternative, 4nn1l2 has to be blocked too for edit warring and escalating petty content disputes to a serious conflict. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    @Incnis Mrsi: Justify your accusation of "harassing", or I will open a thread at this page to topic ban you from participating in ANs where your contributions are more often than not inflammatory. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    A hostile attitude towards Verdy_p by 4nn1l2 is obvious to an experienced Wikimedian. I don’t care how 4nn1l2 estimates my contributions, frankly speaking – I have a lot of people serving as moral references for me, whose opinion is important as a feedback for my conduct. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Moreover. The template is coded in such crooked way that one can’t see old revisions in the standard diff interface. If even me, Incnis Mrsi, hardly can understand actions and intentions of the two, then how might a reasonable person defer solution of the conflict to this noticeboard? The latter is known for its revert–block–ignore culture. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Correction: it was Verdy_p who stuffed the template with confusing (and somewhere erroneous) <includeonly> tags. Verdy_p’s edits had to be reverted on the ground that introduced an untraceable mess into the code. The lengthy discussion on working languages in various countries has little importance. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Looking at Verdy p edits and his comments on the talkpage (after the block), the block seems reasonable. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • See also what Very p created on Meta: m:Requests for comment/Admin role on Commons (inventing or changing unilaterally the community policies). --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

JuniorJunior

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done Uploads nuked and user blocked for 3 days. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 09:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

LTA:ISECHIKA 201906

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please block and nuke uploads per ja:LTA:ISECHIKA.--Roy17 (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done Yann (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Jakeirapeak

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It appears that this user has returned after a one month block for uploading >200 copyright violating images, and has returned to upload more of the same type. I probably should have checked their talk page before opening a DR, and this may be an instance of en:WP:YOUNG, but we still can't very well have a user mass uploading these problematic files and refusing to communicate. GMGtalk 17:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done Seeing the ratio of deleted files vs. useful edits, indef. block. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Topic ban User:Incnis Mrsi from participating in ANs

Latest comment: 5 years ago34 comments19 people in discussion

Incnis Mrsi is banned from editing COM:AN and its subpages for a period of six months. If necessary (including starting new threads), they can contact any other editor to ask them to post on their behalf. Incnis Mrsi is restricted to using only that account. Failure to adhere to these restrictions and expected norms of behaviour on Commons may result in further blocks. Incnis Mrsi may ask after three months for a lift of this sanction, which would be subject to community discussion and consensus at COM:AN/U. — Racconish 💬 13:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs) regularly contributes to administrators' noticeboards with non-constructive bitter comments. I propose to topic ban them from participating in AN‌ threads for one year.

Many of their reports end up archived while they have been left unresponded to (some examples from recent archives: [6] [7] [8] [9]). This has a reason. They often criticize admins bitterly and condescendingly. As a result, few admins would like to engage with them. For a while, I tried to respond to their requests and engage with them positively [10] [11], but I was proved wrong. They attacked me unprovoked with an uncivil comment [12]. And now they just accused [13] me of harassing a user completely unfoundedly. I asked them to justify their accusation, but they did not do so. Baseless accusations of harassments should not be taken lightly as they are real crimes in many countries.

Here are some examples of their hostile attitude. While none of these may be considered enough for a topic ban individually, they show a non-constructive pattern of behaviour collectively:

  • They have recently been blocked for making a toxic atmosphere [14]
  • Multiple warnings on their current talk page by different admins [15] "you must stop playing games on our noticeboards, like here" [16], [17], [18]
  • "smart admin candidates on this site are in short supply" [19]
  • "I’m not sure a random sysop browsing Media missing permission as of 7 May 2019 may be trusted in this respect" [20]
  • "HutheMeow – a case study in the school for abusers run by Commons sysops", "although some Commoners will fight back, sysops are generally lazy and won’t intervene" [21]
  • "The JuTa’s syndrome appears to be contagious" [22]
  • It appears non-Westerners are not trustworthy according to them: "Moreover, I know that their landline IP range covers a large area in Iran hundreds km across. Please, do not refer me to trials conducted in Farsi wikis. You are a Westerner and very likely will be impartial, which is not the case for Persians." [23]. Now I understand why they wrote " “our” check-users, exclusively Western" on my RFA [24].
  • ruwiki issues [25] "a guy from ru.Wikipedia whose community is bent on pettifogging about who and where did post something" "Let them do it within their cultural ghetto" [26]
  • "before firing his admin shotgun" [27]
  • "unlikely any sysop in a sane mind would block it" [28]
  • "Third sysop joined this DoS attack on the protection policy" [29]
  • "not really detrimental compared to demonstrable impotence of the administration with respect to enforcement of blocks." [30]
  • "This site obviously demonstrates a preferential treatment for certain person who is formally exiled in the strongest form" [31]
  • "Seasoned vandal fighters, where are you?" "Sysops watching this noticeboard failed to demonstrate any diligence in reasonable time." [32]
  • "but it’s worrying that a sysop can’t see a large red area in Special:Log/A947" [33]
  • Needless hostility: [34] [35]

I believe their ban from AN threads is the right approach to deal with this user for protecting both the community and the project. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC) More links were added. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  1. This user is not an admin, so the damage they can make is negligible; unless the causes for cencern escalate, the only lasting damage will be to their own reputation.
  2. When there’s conflict envolving this user s/he is always polemic, but often also right. I may dislike the tone of their voice, but it would be a net loss to have it silenced.
  3. There’s nothing in the list of complaints against this user that could not be said also about an admin or another. And since admins become untouchable, it would be a masquerade to demand from simple users what cannot be asked from admins.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
jdx "bright representative of kiss-up-kick down culture" is a classical case of name-calling. T CellsTalk 17:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
  •   Comment I feel torn, even though I was sometimes "targeted". Incnis Mrsi's contributions, especially in the meta area, are often useful, likely due to his insight and language capabilities. On the other hand, as already described above and below, there is the less constructive, sometimes aggressive tone/wording etc. of his comments.
    IMO, 1 year might be unnecessarily long, if we intend this ban to be educative, i.e. to allow Incnis Mrsi to do some introspection and to work on his attitude/wording towards others, admins or anybody on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Discussion about a topic ban for Incnis Mrsi

Responding to the links:

  • [37]: can't say if nobody responded. The second DR was closed while that notice was still up. The first one was closed 2 days after the notice was archived, but it was a complicated DR.
  • Seemingly in response to [38], Yann blocked Gustmeister and Taivo protected User talk:Bookworm8899.
  • No admin seems to have responded to [39], indeed. So because admins don't process a perfectly reasonable report, Incnis must be silenced?
  • [40] was possibly unfortunate, but should probably be seen as an example of a vandalistic username. Incnis may have used 4nn1l2 for the example because 4nn1l2 started that discussion. Going with COM:AGF, I wouldn't seek punishment for just this. Also, this was not on an administrators' board.
  • [41] I didn't follow the template discussion. I don't know.
  • "you must stop playing games on our noticeboards, like here": Incnis made a valid point about the concerned user not having been notified. I assume Jcb previously speedy closed a report for that reason, triggering Incnis to ping him.
  • [42] not sure this was actually a personal attack
  • [43] okay that was a shit move
  • [44] that copyvio tag was nonsense and it was in use so apparently not out of scope, converting it to DR doesn't seem useful. I can't comment on the copyright status, I don't know what "source page" JuTa was referring to.
  • "smart admin candidates on this site are in short supply" [45] Smart admin candidates on this site are in short supply, but that was a flame.
  • "I’m not sure a random sysop browsing Media missing permission as of 7 May 2019 may be trusted in this respect" [46] I wholeheartedly agree!
  • "HutheMeow – a case study in the school for abusers run by Commons sysops", "although some Commoners will fight back, sysops are generally lazy and won’t intervene" [47] Incnis is agitated when seeing smaller but potentially more damaging cases don't get as much attention as larger but relatively harmless cases. This is indeed something abusers could exploit.
  • "The JuTa’s syndrome appears to be contagious" [48] verydy p marked something as minor that shouldn't be minor, JuTa marks every edit as minor. Humor much? It may not be the best joke ever, but is that a crime?
  • It appears non-Westerners are not trustworthy according to them: "Moreover, I know that their landline IP range covers a large area in Iran hundreds km across. Please, do not refer me to trials conducted in Farsi wikis. You are a Westerner and very likely will be impartial, which is not the case for Persians." [49]. Now I understand why they wrote " “our” check-users, exclusively Western" on my RFA [50]. I've seen some doubtful stuff from the Persian CU department..

I think a topic ban is a net loss. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Alexis Jazz: More links were added and will be added. There is a reason why admins tend to ignore them. They often speak in a condescending "I'm-smarter-than-you" manner. Nobody likes to be treated like that, so admins often try to avoid engaging with them and the user feels like "am I ignored on Commons too?".
It is one thing to be doubtful about the quality of investigations done by the Persian CU department (so am I sometimes), but it is another thing to segregate users as Westerners and non-Westerners and state that Persians are "very likely" not "impartial". The second one is an attack directed towards a group of contributors. It is like to say the people of Ruritania are too incompetent to hold any responsibilities. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@4nn1l2: no need for more links, after their response here I'm not going to bother anymore. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lisamol

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Everything is copyvio and despite explanation doesn't seem to understand yet. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done One week block, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rodrigo.Argenton

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

So... more of my attention you want so badly
For those that do not know about the Jeff love about me, let me do a list:
  • Random warnings and bad used of template at my talk page:
  • Blind delete support in files that I uploaded.
    This is a big list and I have things to finish today, so a summary:
    • He blindly ask for deletion when he sees my name
      As here
      Sometimes the sysop do not check the discussion and the file is wrongly delete:
      as here
      As this occurs so often that in the last time, probably to not make so clear that was him, he sign as a IP:
      [53]
  • And now the crème de la crème, he said that I was offending him, that this is personal attack, no my friends; this is a personal attack:
    • I'll quote: "we don't need your photos, either." [54]
That's it, I have things to do, so you are welcome to see how many positive interactions he have with me in the last months.
I request to a sysop to check his threats before, he not only closed saying that was a non sense request, but after he did the same for another request, and when I questioned him here, he reverted and block for a whole week, and you did nothing.
Jeff G. already did this hunting with other volunteers before, and you let this happen...
How about an interaction ban? To me back to my uploads and do not have to deal with him?
Peace!
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 03:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Wut.. it's true. You weren't even here. The full "we don't need your photos" quote is "If you can't or won't provide such information, we don't need your photos, either". Doesn't sound as strong.. Not too nice though. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The edit today is not civil and not acceptable. For the second time today, I find it helpful to post a link to Paul Graham's essay How to disagree. It is typical of RTA to operate at the very bottom of the "disagreement hierarchy" when arguing either at DR (here) or at Featured Pictures discussions. The link Jeff gave is a good example. I think RTA merits a block for persistent incivility. I agree with Alexis, though, that the comment ending with "we don't need your photos either" is an over-hostile way of making a point about licence or copyright information. To a user who mainly contributes through taking and uploading their own images, and organising academic events to make useful images for Commons/Wikipedia, that comes across as a non-vulgar way of telling them to fuck off. Anyway, RTA's reaction to being criticised is often to try to make trouble for the person criticising and so let's deal with the actual topic: RTA. I don't support interaction bans on Commons, and they are frequently requested, as here, in order to censor critics. This isn't the first time RTA has used "How about an interaction ban" as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Time for a block. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Having looked at Rodrigo's history a bit, he seems to clash mostly just with Jeff G. A two-way IBAN may actually be sensible, at least we could try it. And as we have started to use Commons:Editing restrictions again, why not.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Well that's just the recent person. RTA clashed with User:Wilfredor to the degree that Wilfredor accepted an interaction ban out of frustration. RTA has in the past suggested such ban with me, because I've been a critic and called him out when he has attacked others. Essentially anyone he gets into dispute with becomes a target of crude personal attacks and ad-hominems. Those doing administrative functions (whether admins or not) need to be able to carry them out (such as creating DR) without getting personally attacked in response. An IBAN punishes both editors equally and censors a critic. In the two diffs presented by Jeff here, there is clearly one person misbehaving to a degree that is quite simply unacceptable and so we should not any longer put up with it. I don't think Jeff's behaviour here has been great, but it certainly hasn't reached a level requiring a ban. For example, Jeff, the last time "removing warnings from talk pages" was discussed, there was IIRC clear consensus that we should not care. By removing the warning, the user acknowledges their receipt. So I don't think you should use that template. And RTA has a point about using newbie copyvio templates on a long term user who has uploaded a lot of perfectly fine material. I think this is more a problem that Jeff can have a tin ear for what he writes sometimes, and perhaps needs to put himself into their shoes more. But, this a general issue with Jeff and I don't see it specific or serious enough to warrant any sanction like a ban, and think he's generally willing to take advice on board. RTA's persistent personal attacks and incivility towards others has gone on unchecked for too long. -- Colin (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also, Rodrigo's original edit to File:WikiEdu 2019 - Commons the hidden gem.pdf sets a terrible example of insufficient attribution.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Strongly oppose any action against Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton. We have more important things to deal with than perceived "civility" issues. AshFriday (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Miros Dursselev

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Doesn't seem to have understood the reason behind the previous block: continues to upload files related to es:Daniel Romero-Abreu. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Persistent upload of files from Flickr that are already available on commons

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Mohammed Galib Hasan uploaded numerous files, amount is in the hundreds, from Flickr to Commons. All of which were requested to be deleted by me at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mohammed Galib Hasan. Jcb deleted all of them and gave the user a warning. Following that, JuTa also spotted this and reminded the user, as seen here. As of now, I nominated another 380 files for DR (uploaded between 14:44, 29 June 2019 and 14:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)). Out of those 380 files, a large majority was already deleted by Jcb in the previous 2 DR. 大诺史 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have told the user to stop transferring files from Flickr, because they where flooding us with duplicates. Today they reuploaded all the hundreds of duplicates that I deleted yesterday. Conclusion: 1 week block. Jcb (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
agreed. --JuTa 23:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

DenghiùComm

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

How do we get category mover rights and then procede to do really bad stuff like this? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Moved back: a) his certificate of birth doesn't read Charles, b) per d:Q45068 the majority of articles use Carl, c) given reason coherence with the other sister cats is nonsense and doesn't qualify, d) regarding finding and accessing media the move has no benefit. See also this disc. --Achim (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Serge: It's not a problem of mover rights: If the dest cat page does already exist (redirecting page after a cat move) it has to be deleted temporarily. That can only be done by an admin. The cleanest way would be {{Move}} but that might take weeks until it's done, {{Bad name}} may lead to an unwanted deletion of the redirect. Either ask an admin for the move or tag the dest cat {{Speedydelete|temp del to make way for a move}} and perform the move yourself when it is deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Profesor tm

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

Sock of Dirham Prof (talk · contribs). Uploads same stuff.--Roy17 (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Delete Category:Persatuan Tenis Meja Seluruh Indonesia Kota Prabumulih per id:Persatuan Tenis Meja Seluruh Indonesia Kota Prabumulih.--Roy17 (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
See also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Suwanda Sitorus.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nine Angle Wiki

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please block Nine Angle Wiki (talk · contribs) for promotion only, also delete files once necessary. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 18:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=356637024"