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

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

User:BMarGlines[edit]

User indefinitely blocked for disruptive behavior. All files deleted, but some have since been restored per the request of the user who first reported BMarGlines, as they were used on the English Wikipedia and seem to be legitimate. --Bedivere (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2024 (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.

This user appears to be uploading homemade TV station logos, particularly for CW affiliates. These logos are not used on air or on the stations' websites. I have nominated these logos for deletion. This user has already been warned over on Wikipedia (w:User talk:BMarGlines#May 2024). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at one of the so-called station logos for WCAX and it's not accurate either. File:WCAX 2023.jpg I have nominated that for deletion as a hoax. Possible that many of this users uploads may be fan creations of some sort. -- William Graham (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BMarGlines has been blocked at Wikipedia for a week for continuing to upload fanmade logos. They should be blocked indefinitely here at Commons and all their uploads deleted. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I was open to give BMarGlines a chance to amend their behavior. Not anymore. I have blocked them indefinitely and have deleted all of their uploads. If they ever get an unblock, their uploads should be closely monitored. Bedivere (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the removed logos should be restored, as they are in actual use (e.g. the Gray NBC affiliate logos without the peacock). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said "all their uploads [should be] deleted" and that's what I did. I saw no other alternative anyway, given their disruptive behavior. Anyway, if you point me out which ones you want restored, I will proceed. I did review some of them and could not decide some could be legitimate. Bedivere (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored those that were in use on the English Wikipedia. If you need any other restored, please let me know. Bedivere (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a request at COM:REFUND. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2024 (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.

Punitive deletion nominations[edit]

@Bedivere: I am experiencing punitive nominations. Are there an actions that can be taken to stop this behavior? It has a chilling effect of participating in debates. About 20 years ago someone did the same thing when I opposed their nomination for deletion of an image. If you want to harass someone, all you have to do is nominate every image they uploaded as a punishment. This is not behavior expected of an administrator, its is a misuse of their status as administrator, to punish someone who opposed a single edit. President Richard Nixon would have the IRS audit people on his enemies list, this is the same behavior, it was part of his articles of impeachment to remove him from office. I do not think Bedivere has the temperament to have access to administrative tools. The punishment appears to be over this edit where the threat "Stop disrupting the project. Do not readd the text or you will get blocked." is made. Bedivere also removed the valid license in their deletion. This is a ridiculous amount of drama over a single edit and a valid interpretation of Commons policy. Institutionalized harassment has a chilling effect on people participating. Is there a policy against using punitive nominations to punish people that have opposed you in a debate? See above where User:Ankry is also harassing me over the same edit. User:Ankry and User:Bedivere appear to be working in tandem to harass/punish me. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) --RAN (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have acknowledged (in the deletion request) that it was an error to make such a big deletion request. I still maintain that many of these uploads are out of scope. Additionally, many of them have dubious or entirely incorrect licensing. I deleted a couple, actually. Will do so when I've got the time. However, I think that calling this some kind of witch-hunting is both excessive and not really correct. Moreover, you say I do not have "the temperament to have access to administrative tools". You have failed to give appropriate responses to the more than appropriate concerns raised here and on the deletion requests. You have failed to respond how are these in scope (disregarding the existence of the Wikidata items you created). I have not contacted nor have even ever message if I recall correctly Ankry - calling this a "working in tandem to harass/punish" you is not assuming good faith and is unacceptable. These statements [1] on a "harassment/punishment campaign" are out of line too. I will keep myself away from this discussion if that helps cooling down this, but I do assert that RAN's actions and statements should be worthy an apology, at least, and getting them retracted. Finally, regarding the removal of the license which you claim I apparently did on purpose, I only reverted your edits to the previous by Ankry. --Bedivere (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most fundamental tenet of our Commons:Scope is clear: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose … if it is in use, that is enough ... It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope." (my emphasis added) As an administrator you are aware of it. It only reinforces that you do not have the temperament to be entrusted with admin tools. You misinterpreted a fundamental policy and you punished/harassed me with massive punitive nominations over a single disputed edit. At that single edit you threatened me with: "Stop disrupting the project. Do not readd the text or you will get blocked. This belongs to Wikisource (if it is actually kept)" this was during an open debate about how much text can be displayed at Commons, or whether text needs to be embedded in a djvu or pdf. This is a serious amount of drama and frightening harassment over what was a legitimate policy debate. --RAN (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Commons:Project scope "any use that is not made in good faith does not count." There's been at least a couple discussions recently about people adding files to other project in order to save them from being deleted and the consensus at least from those conversations was pretty clear that it's not a good faithed way to use something. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem of asserting that you can determine "good faith" means are able to determine the state of mind of the person at the time of adding a document, which can be highly subjective. And we all need to remember: discussions are not policy and essays are not policy and opinions are not policy and emotions are not policy. --RAN (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to throw it out there, I personally probably wouldn't have voted delete on most, if not all, of the images in the DR but that's mainly because they are in scope to begin with. I just think the guideline isn't as cut and dry as your making it out to be and the whole "but the files are in use" thing is particularly weak in this case considering the circumstances. Especially since the at least IMO most of the images are probably worth keeping regardless. Baring ones that are clearly from Ancestory.com and/or don't have proof of prior publication. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
United States copyright case law has ruled that an image is "made public" when it leaves the custody of the creator, it doesn't solely have to appear in a newspaper or magazine. See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg for a cogent discussion of the relevant case law. --RAN (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume "Ancestory.com" is meant to be "Ancestry.com" (and, while I'm at it, that "baring" is "barring").
Do note that under current U.S. copyright law, since the beginning of 2003, publishing any previously unpublished work work cannot gain any protection beyond p.m.a. + 70 for a known author with a known date of death, or 120 years since creation otherwise. So if it was first published on Ancestry.com in 2003 or later, the copyright situation is exactly the same as if it were unpublished. - Jmabel ! talk 04:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Yeah, sorry. Phone editing. Blame the stupid interface. Anyway, ancestory.com was founded in 1996 and as far as I know there's no way to know when exactly a work was uploaded there. Although I haven't looked that extensively into it, but there is a chance that images on the site were uploaded to it prior to 2003. So I assume they would be deleted per the precautionary principle just like any instance where we can't determine the exact publication date. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that though.
I'm going to guess that in some cases some combination of Internet Archive, information about when someone created an account, etc., can help us pin down a date pretty well. - Jmabel ! talk 06:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm sure that's totally the process RAN went through before he uploaded images from there to. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an actual link to the photograph / file on Ancestry.com could be provided, there would be a date, since they do display them. But RAN deliberatedly ommited linking to the files/images. Bedivere (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RAN: where did I say something "solely has to appear in a newspaper or magazine" to be published? Because I don't think that's what I said. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): correctly pinging RAN. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The harassment has now migrated to Wikidata. They nominated a group of entries there, and added: "I think all of RAN's creations should be carefully reviewed". It is a dog whistle to recruit others to harass me with a punitive audit there, since the audit here failed. I do not think that Bedivere should have access to admin tools. They continue to show that they do not have the temperament for the job, they just can't seem to let go of the issue, which was a challenge to a single edit that occurred several days ago. This is extremely concerning since I edit under my real name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 05:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Could you please stop making personal attacks? You also fail to assume good faith and have intensively attacked me, so far without sanction. I will not feed the troll anymore and I will only clarify that such "now migrated" "harassment" thread was started nearly two days ago. I've got enough of this unnecessarily dramatic situation. Someone should take the mop and close these threads with a result, as it seems now, it's getting nowhere. Bedivere (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So "I think all of RAN's creations should be carefully reviewed", "RAN deliberatedly ommited linking" and "I will not feed the troll anymore" are not personal attacks? You don't seem to be offering good faith at the same time you're demanding it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been consistently accused by RAN of a harassment campaign, which is not the case. Bedivere (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interruption from certain bnwiki editors in wikimedia commons campaign[edit]

We are organizing Wiki Loves Earth in Bangladesh 2024 from Commons:Project Korikath. We have received interruption during our CNBanner and Massmessage. The rationale stated is, the organzers (including me) of this campaign is blocked on bnwiki and so I can't organize the campaign on commons.

There is already one RfC on meta regarding my bnwiki block. There is another RfC regarding alleged disruptive editing by the individual who is most actively involved in the aforementioned disruptions. This person threatened one of our contributors over facebook messenger and made him remove (one of over forty) his uploads from our last wikimedia commons campaign, we have evidence of that. The same person got engaged in an edit war a few days ago with our contributor on wikidata. There are several wmf t&s cases against these certain people.

I am not engaging with bnwiki anymore and investing my skill, network and effort for Wikimedia Commons. Since all the campaigns arranged by me or my team is taking place on commons, bnwiki is irrelevant there and demand of removing bnwiki editors from our massmessage list, removing CNBanner from all user with Bangla as the interface language from all wikis (including commons) is completely irrelevant and it disregards the autonomy of other projects considering the fact that a language can't be owned by anyone. I am raising this matter to the community since the insentisity of disruption is raising everyday. If we did anything unconstructive which is harmful to wikimedia commons, we are open to the consequences and discussion. But we don't want anyone outside wikimedia commons to disrupt our wikimedia commons campaigns and projects.--Mrb Rafi (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that bn-wiki can prevent you from putting banners on their wiki and messaging users on their wiki, and that is not anything Commons can affect.
Of course you can message the same users on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 04:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it has been said quite a number of times that non-Commons dramas should not be used to disturb contributors/contributions on Wikimedia Commons. Most necessarily, when those dramas harm campaigns that contribute to the overall development of Wikimedia Commons. Bangla Wikipedia drama in this case should not be used to hunt/kill any activity here however I don't really know how CNBanners work but citing that drama for it to be entirely disabled on Commons from bn-language interface editors feels very odd. ─ Aafī (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shocking to see that two bnwiki admins, ordered a commons admin, on bnwiki, to remove something on commons.
The above-mentioned user's behavior specifically is problematic. He threatened me also over Facebook messenger as I am a contributor of this initiative and told me to stop contributing. I know several contributors who experienced the same. Tanvir Rahat (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case please contact meta:Trust and Safety. This not nothing we can resolve here. GPSLeo (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This incident does significantly impacts Wikimedia Commons. Blocking the CNBanner or mass message on Wikimedia Commons should be invalid without a community consensus on Wikimedia Commons. Every user, regardless of interface language, should have access to the CNBanner on Wikimedia Commons.
I found the information of several existing T&S cases and law enforcement investigations against the mentioned individuals. So, T&S is informed.
The abuse of advanced rights and on-wiki influence by these individuals must be confined to bnwiki, where there is an ongoing RfC addressing this monopolization. If these individuals aim to block a CNBanner or mass message on Commons, we require a specific community consensus from Commons explicitly stating this prohibition. Before reaching such a clear community consensus, blocking any CNBanner or mass message on wikimedia commons is invalid and an abuse of power.
Evidence of cross-wiki vandalism by these individuals is obvious in the above text and other linked docs. Since this abuse undermines Wikimedia Commons' existence as an autonomous wikimedia project, the Commons community retains the authority to take appropriate corrective measures. Ifteebd10 (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Banners are also nothing we can discuss or decide on Commons. This has to be discussed and decided on Meta. GPSLeo (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This incident is unlike regular vandalism. The user(s), particularly the one mentioned above, are abusing their advanced rights to disrupt another campaign on a different Wikimedia project. Due to the severity of this behavior, the consequences should be stricter than those for typical vandalism.
I recommend a short-term block for User:আফতাবুজ্জামান to emphasize that vandalizing major Wikimedia Commons campaigns will not be tolerated, especially when it involves citing drama from other projects. Ahnaf Tahmid Manan (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Denisjcroux[edit]

Denisjcroux (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Uploads some thumb photos without Meta data of French personalities, many of which have been deleted for copyvio and have been reloaded in some cases. All his uploads should be checked and deleted if not conform to GDFL. Pierre cb (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bigote20006[edit]

Bigote20006 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StarkWinter[edit]

StarkWinter (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continues uploading obvious copyright violations (album covers) despide being warmed and temporarily blocked this month. Günther Frager (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by EugeneZelenko. Kadı Message 19:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Quick1984[edit]

3 апреля данный участник загрузил файлы с нарушением лицензии. 15 апреля User:Aafi выдал ему флаг автопатрулируемого, указав, что тот якобы является «достаточно опытным и заслуживающим доверия участником». Прошу лишить Quick1984 флага автопатрулирующего за подлог лицензии. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Лишение флага станет возможным, если он будет ошибиться с файлями, загруженные после 15 апреля. Taivo (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iamnicolasfaith[edit]

Iamnicolasfaith (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is reinputting self-portrait and logos that have been deleted in 2023 and 2024. This is evidently a self-promoting account that should be blocked. Pierre cb (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked by The Squirrel Conspiracy. Yann (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Enterinsting[edit]

Enterinsting (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) All uploads are taken from the web and not own works as stated. 188.123.231.51 20:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Last warning sent and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Enterinsting. Yann (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oscar Antonio[edit]

Oscar Antonio (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploaded in the past several copyvios and was notified by DMacks to stop such behavior in October 2023. I bumped into a couple of his recent uploads and they appear to be Flickrwashing, see this DR and this DR. Günther Frager (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Indef-blocked. Bedivere (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:SonicXMasako2[edit]

Persistent and targeted vandalism across numerous files, has been doing this since last year. NorthTension (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Bedivere blocked the user indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geovane Jenner[edit]

User:Geovane Jenner began again to G10. 186.172.16.70 14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Kadı Message 22:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tylertemp19[edit]

User:Tylertemp19 keep uploading copyvios despite warnings. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 16:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Kadı Message 22:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=880942620"