Open main menu

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcut: COM:AN/U· COM:ANU

Community portal
introduction
Help deskVillage pump
copyrightproposalstechnical
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

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 report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
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
13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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
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
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.

Davey2010

User has repeatedly removed useful categorization from files (example 1 [1], [2], …) and even after multiple approaches (latest) refuses to their edit war. --MB-one (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The File:Bus-CE64-Wuppertal-Cronenberg-Rathaus.JPG is actually a borderline case -- the bus is not really prominently shown in the picture (unlike the bus stop sign and the buildings), so actually categories related to the bus are dispensable. Chronical editwar because of this one category (and this since April 2017!!) is unacceptable -- you guys REALLY have no more useful things to do on Commons? Shall I full-protect the file? Both of you @Davey2010, MB-one: definitely have to decide (via discussion, not editwar), whether the bus is prominent enough for categories. If not, the other bus-related categories (blue buses etc.) should be removed too. If yes, the Citaro category should be added. Additionally, @Davey2010, it is unacceptable to use the rollback button in edit wars. Please do not do it anymore, otherwise I reserve myself the possibility to remove your rollbacker flag without any further warnings. Thanks --A.Savin 07:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Agree w A.Savin. The case is borderline and a >2 years-editwar is unacceptable. Both positions are legitimate, but not compelling. Though on Commons we have no established Third opinion approach, it might help to involve a category-specialist as sort of arbitrator into this case. A word of wisdom: sometimes it helps just to let go.--Túrelio (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010, MB-one, A.Savin, Túrelio: I would say placing the file into Category:Mercedes-Benz Citaro in Germany‎ or any of its subcats would be ok. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I've repeatedly told the user to gain consensus for their additions but each time have been ignored .... that being said it takes 2 to edit war so I take blame for my part in this,
If anyone has any suggestions as to how I could get a wider audience and consensus I would happily go that route right now,
In all fairness I have no idea how I would go about getting consensus and MB probably doesn't either which would probably explain why this has continued for so long,
Could I just add tho I did add an image note to File:Bus-CE64-Wuppertal-Cronenberg-Rathaus.JPG which I felt was a good compromise so in my defence here I have tried to resolve it amicably,
In regards to the rollback - I gave up using edit summaries because I felt like I was repeating myself but granted that is still no excuse to use it especially when it's not vandalism,
Anyway as I said if anyone has any suggestions as to how I could get a wider audience and consensus I would happily go that route,
Thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 10:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
A.Savin, Túrelio and 大诺史 - Would it be advisable to start an COM:RFC on this ?, I feel an RFC would be excessive however given myself and MB cannot resolve this by ourselves I'm out of ideas on the next best solution. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 22:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Any statement MB-one? Why do you consider a categorization of non-prominently shown vehicles useful? --A.Savin 08:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Indeed this has been going on for years in several cases and for most disputed files, we could find a solution. My argument is basically what A.Savin has layed out above: Either a file should be categorized properly by bus model, or in case the bus is really a negligible object in the frame, it should not be referenced at all. However, in this case, Davey argued, that the bus is not the main subject of the photo, which is clearly wrong. The original file name and description by the author of the photograph are explicitly stating the bus as the main subject of the image. Therefore, it would be ridiculous not to categorize the file accordingly. The user has been made aware of that fact multiple times and still continued to revert. --MB-one (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The uploader/photographer may give the file any name they wish. If the file is called "bus", this doesn't necessarily mean the bus is the central motif. And in this case, it is by no means clear. If you want 3rd opinion, on this photo the bus stop sign and this part of the street is the central motif. --A.Savin 11:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Even not counting the sub-cats, we have 345 images of that type of bus. We don't need to categorize every last image where a bare back corner of one is just poking out from behind a pillar.
MediaWiki categorization is not ordinal or defining. We do not need to record every item visible in every photograph. Categorization here is a navigational feature, so that readers seeking images of a Mercedes-Benz Citaro bus can be guided to finding them. It is not a rare bus and it is a common bus today, thus we collect many images of them. This might be different for a bus from 60-70 years ago where images are scarce. I would support Davey's actions here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi A.Savin, Sorry to bother you but just wondering - As MB-One appears to have ignored this discussion[3] would it be safe to say my edits should stand and that if MB-One still has a problem then they'd need to seek consensus ?,
Not trying to annoy anyone but I'm afraid of this being archived before anything's done or clarified so just wanted to ask, Many thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 15:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Basically I agree with Andy Dingley and I would remove all bus-related categories (not only Citaro) from the file in question. --A.Savin 22:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
A.Savin Okie dokie many thanks for clarifying and for your help with all of this it's much appreciated, I'll remove those once this is closed or archived, Many thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 22:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Vinci84

In conjunction with (most likely a sockpuppet account) Julyaaana (talk · contribs), randomly reverting files to older inferior revisions without explanation. These edits were reverted by me, and they reverted it back, again without explanation. They were warned by me and @Jeff G.: on their talk page to cease and desist this disruptive behavior, but they have not responded and have continued despite it. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 00:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked Julyaaana indef. for socking, and Vinci84 for a week for overwriting files after warning. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 11:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Poddiya

Continues copyvios despite warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him/her for a week. All uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

C raju kumar

Continues OOS uploads just out of block, no useful edit. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

That was their second block for it. I indef'ed, and cleaned up at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by C raju kumar. DMacks (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Basile Morin


DISRUPTION BY AN ADMIN


Fcuk1203

Yes check.svg Resolved

Deliberate violation of Commons:Overwriting existing files. The most obvious example is File:CYHS-1.JPG, I reverted to the original version, but he reverted to the previous version and say "學校名稱都變更了,憑什麼回退到舊照". 憑什麼 means "you and what army". To me that is a provocative action. Before I reverted it, I have told him that do not overwrite files that is not his own original upload. See: User_talk:Fcuk1203#You cannot overwrite other user's work as your own work.

The other, much more serious problem is that he has long violated the "OVERWRITE" policy, and even he will overwrite someone else's image. I took the time to check his uploaded images, and found that 20 images violated the policy.--Kai3952 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Persistent breach of COM:OVERWRITE going back years, no communication, abusive edit summaries. No. Indeffed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: this block is bad. The user's latest problematic edit was on 29 August 2018 at File:CYHS-1.JPG. That's a year ago! Have you checked User:Kai3952's report carefully?--Roy17 (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: The problem is that he has "long" violated Commons:Overwriting existing files. Have you forgotten that there was a discussion about his uploaded files at COM:AN two month ago? 20 of the 34 images are in violation of the policy, but you seems to think that the problem is me. Take a look at these files:
I don't think you have checked carefully enough. However, the more important question is: Fcuk1203 may do the same thing again. I have told him about the "OVERWRITE" policy so it's not like he doesn't know the policy is there. If you think Rodhullandemu doesn't need to block him, then he should not object to my reverting his overwriting.--Kai3952 (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: The point of a block is to prevent behaviour harmful to Commons, and this includes breaching our policies, whatever the intention and even with possible difficulties of understanding language. But this user has been reverted and warned on numerous previous occasions, and has failed to stop. If I were on the end of this and didn't understand what was going on, I would ask for help. But this editors hasn't responded to any notices. An indefinite block does not mean an infinite block, and if (s)he shows an understanding of what is permitted here, an unblock is possible. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: this block was applied for socalled problematic overwriting, but the user has not done it since Aug 2018, i.e. the user is not disrupting/vandalising at the time of the block. Simply put, the block is against the blocking policy.
User:Fcuk1203 was reported in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_74#Some_users_from_Taiwan_seem_to_be_unclear_about_"COM:OVERWRITE.". No sysop action was taken at that time.
Kai3952 seems to not understand how to properly handle such matters, as reflected in that report. I translated dont overwrite into Chinese and issued one to Fcuk1203 in June. S/he has not violated overwriting policy since.
@Kai3952: you should not report the same edits repeatedly on AN. Fcuk1203's overwriting in the past has been dealt with in your last report. Only if he did overwrite with substantial changes to the photos again after warning, then you report, instead of bringing up closed cases.--Roy17 (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: What?! You say that Kai3952 is not understand how to properly handle such matters? Your attitude makes me feel that you are not responsible for what you said on AN, because you mean to tell me that the problem is me. When I ask you for help, then you say: "I told you, read COM:OVERWRITE. Have you done that? Have you read 3.1 Minor improvements? Stop asking questions that are answered by what you quote, which you should have read." And now, you correct me that should not bringing up closed cases. I know that you can to properly handle this matter, but you do not need to criticize me in order to win your argument here. In fact, at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard, you didn't tell me yet what I to do, so I can only handle with it using my own ideas. I also told Rodhullandemu(see User talk:Rodhullandemu#Unblocking Fcuk1203) that if you think there is no need to block the user, then I have no opinion on it. Roy17, I honestly hope that you can talk rationally to me, otherwise I won't care what you say. I would watch your attitude. Who do you think you are?!--Kai3952 (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
As of now, User:Fcuk1203 is still blocked. @Rodhullandemu: could you please justify why the user was blocked on 9 Sep 2019, even though s/he had not violated any policy since 30 Aug 2018?--Roy17 (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: Blocks are used to prevent harm being caused to Commons. Fcuk1203 had a clear track record of ignoring policy and failing to communicate, both of which are considered harmful behaviour. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Fcuk1203 was active in the year and made no harmful edits. Why do you think s/he has not stopped after the warnings were given to him/her?--Roy17 (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: Haven't you got anything better to do? If Fcuk1203 wants to be unblocked s/he can ask for it, and it may be granted. Meanwhile, I;ve got other stuff to do. It's Heritage Week and I'm fully booked with real work. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: the question still stands. You said if (s)he shows an understanding of what is permitted here, an unblock is possible. What makes you think that a user who has not broken the rules for a year does not understand his/her past grievances, such that s/he should be blocked indefinitely for the first block s/he receives?--Roy17 (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Several Copyvios and Multiple accounts by user:संदेश हिवाळे

  1. Copyright violations and using wrong licenses : They have been warned several times for copyvio(Atleast their talk tells 40 files got deleted, admins can dig more into here), they are already blocked on enwiki for breach of topic ban and socking.
  2. Sockpuppetery : Recently, their sock was blocked on enwiki, which is also active here on commons too. More info about SPI here So I am requesting block for both the accounts. thanks QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 16:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I blocked संदेश हिवाळे for a week, and Sandesh Tupsundre indef. Yann (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Abdel Rahman Hany Muhamed

Continues copyvios out of block, removes copyvio templates. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done - Эlcobbola talk 21:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Cold Season

Cold Season (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Cold Season has been nominating Chinese paintings, which are obviously old enough, for speedy and normal deletion.

One extreme example. S/he uploaded File:Seated Portrait of Emperor Song Huizong.tif, so s/he knows what era this came from, but s/he nominated File:Songqinzong Chinghong.jpg, which is similar in style, for deletion.--Roy17 (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

First off, nominating problematic files is literally following Commons:Deletion policy. Your failure to argue for why a file should be kept, is not a user problem on my part. Perhaps you should take some distance.
Secondly, you claim that I know what File:Songqinzong Chinghong.jpg is, but--in fact--I actually do not know what that file is (as I follow sources/references/museum accession numbers/etcetera to identify things). Those are two distinct files depicting two distinct things. --Cold Season (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Cold Season doesnt provide any evidence why any file nominated could be possibly still copyrighted. To remain in copyright, the creator must be still alive in 1946, such that life+50 ends after 1996-01-01. Chinese painters were not drawing these shitty ones after around mid 19th century. Try searching '晚清 畫像' or browsing any art catalogues. Artworks from 19th century onwards had much finer details.--Roy17 (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The burden of proof lies on establishing that the file is free use (this is policy) to keep the files on Commons. You are the one who keeps removing deletion templates from files while not fixing the files (such as here or here).--Cold Season (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Another example of completely pointless DR. S/he says File:Mingyingzong.jpg (This one is also watermarked, which makes it all the more obvious that it is not an own work.) in Commons:Deletion requests/File:King Wan Li.jpg. The painting depictes Category:Zhengtong Emperor, and there are two dupes in Category:Portraits of Zhengtong Emperor! Even if Cold Season doesnt read Chinese, a bit of work of searching in English should quite effortlessly lead him/her to well sourced files and so s/he would not raise such DRs. On the contrary, his/her upload records are full of Chinese artworks, so s/he is not entirely clueless.--Roy17 (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
For the record, File:Qiu_Chuji.jpg was another very bad tagging. Reverse search would find the painting complete with the notation on top, which I just uploaded File:丘處機.jpg. Searching the signature 牟昌裕 would reveal 牟昌裕 lived in 18th century, so the painting could not be later than that. Yet it was deleted as no source, causing massive delinking.--Roy17 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, your failure to convincingly argue why a file should be kept (and/or provide the minimal requirement to keep a file) is not an user problem on my part, as the nominations are in accordance to Commons:Deletion policy. You are literally reporting me here for making deletion nomination discussions, which doesn't even make much sense... You need to be aware that a source or any other relevant information about the file is required and needs to be provided. --Cold Season (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 Not done Nothing to be done here. The burden of proof that a file is not copyright protected is on the uploader of the file. It is problematic to mark such files using {{Own}}. As such at least the source information is false. The deletion request is maybe unnecessary, but certainly not frivolous enough to warrant discussion on AN/U. Please discuss the merits of the DR in the DR itself. Also, please do not remove {{Delete}} templates from files itself, leave that to the closing admin. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Cold Season: you have been uploading Chinese artworks, so you must have some knowledge. With that knowledge, you should be well aware what you are nominating do not come close to being still copyrighted. Copyright is not a problem whether a work has vague or no sources, if it is obviously a work from before 19th century. That you have the knowledge but still raise such pointless DRs is a user problem.
@Srittau: I was just writing something...--Roy17 (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

May be same person

If I'm not wrong, the 2 users uploaded the same file over and over again. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 04:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. Bizzlamichhane007 was blocked for 3 months. You warned Mb12as and after that copyvios have stopped, his/her copyvios are deleted. I think, that at moment the situation does not need more actions. Taivo (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Kyladcarter

I believe enough warnings have been given for copyvios. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 03:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User removed no permission template from File:Kyla Carter.jpg. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week and warned Gbawden (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Attia.hakim

Continues copyvios out of blocks. No useful edit. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed. Two previous blocks should have got the message across. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Carsson Tan

Reuploading deleted content. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week and all uploads nuked Gbawden (talk) 13:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Embu wiki

Reuploading of fair use content after warnings. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Final warning given Gbawden (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Caio bryan

Adds wd nonsense descriptions, mostly of coprological nature. -- Tuválkin 18:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 3 edits in the last 7 days? A warning would be more appropriate Gbawden (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • More appropriate than what, Gbawden? Did I request any particular sanction? I didn’t, I was just warning admins about this vandalism-only account. But anyway, you may say it’s 3 (actually 4) edits in 7 days and therefore no biggie, while I say that 100% of this user’s edits were rubbish (75% litteral poo jokes, the remaining 25% just random vandalism) and therefore it should be routinely blocked, no qualms. -- Tuválkin 18:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Concerning Basile Morin’s translation link, please be aware that while "coco" means indeed "coconut", this user likely mean to write "cocô", with a different meaning, less botanical than zoological (indeed coprological, as said in the o.p.). -- Tuválkin 23:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Android app: Feed for adding captions

  • What I really don’t know is what to make of the tag #suggestededit-add 1.0. What is it, how does it work, and how can we avoid its misuse by trolls. -- Tuválkin 23:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Jean-Frédéric. I hope this one isn’t representative of the typical user of this feature, and that roll backs and later undoings of the added captions can be detected, not just singular, immediate reversals (@Johan (WMF): ping). -- Tuválkin 09:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
We're actually seeing a lower revert rate for users of this feature than newcomers in general so far (numbers based mainly on Wikidata, as it's pretty new for Commons).
As a piece of housekeeping, and to keep vandals out, we're working on automatically blocking/removing this feature from app users who get reverted too many times, beyond what can be expected for newcomers who want to help out and are learning how. We've laid out some plans in mw:Wikimedia Apps/Team/Android/AppEditorTasks#Suggested Edits 3.0 - Improved Suggested Edits Homescreen and Feature Pausing and phab:T231449 – feedback is very welcome.
(Just to be clear, that'd just be the app feature inviting the person to go through these feeds. We wouldn't block the account in general, that's a community decision. All other editing would continue functioning as it normally does.) /Johan (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
(Timely question, by the way: information about this is to go out in Tech News on Monday, asking for feedback on anti-vandal parts this feature.) /Julle (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Johan (WMF): I need to ask again, as it’s still unclear to me: Is your mechanism capable of detecting if/when a given caption content was in any way superseded, such as replacement via a later edit, or only outright reversals as such? -- Tuválkin 14:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
No, this is specifically being reverted using undo/rollback. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

TURRANK

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

GSPassoni20042019

Everything is copyvio. Blocked once. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 month. --Mhhossein talk 03:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Jonathan mercar

Everything is copyvio. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 04:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Final warning given, all uploads deleted Gbawden (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Abdo Hany Muhamed

Probable escape block of Abdel Rahman Hany Muhamed (talk · contribs), same uploads related to Tamer Hosny and same removals of deletion templates. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Elcobbola blocked Abdel Rahman Hany Muhamed indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Amazsara10

copyvios despite warnings. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 10:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week and uploads deleted Gbawden (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

AndreCollodi

Because I've nominated to deletion some of his files user threats me of a trial and "the contest organizers" as well (I suppose he is refering to Wiki Loves Monuments Italia 2019). May someone (perhaps one Italian-speaking Administrator) try to understand what it's all about because, frankly, I don't get it? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked indefinitely. We do not accept legal threats against other users. Ankry (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
For tracking: the user was warned here. Ankry (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Marathimovie

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him for a month (second block). Taivo (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Yann

It is well known that Yann has had something personal against me and has based a lot of admin decisions on his personal sentiments against me. Now again he is trying to somehow banning me from commenting, see here and newer history of that page. It was already very clear that is was no way suitable for Yann to close this UDR, because they were way too involved, as was also told to them by others. This hostile behaviour has to stop here and now. Jcb (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop your usual bullshit, would you? Yann (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Your attempt to get me desysoped of the closure of this DR: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_79#Jcb. Jcb (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
See User_talk:1989/Archive_2#Jcb where @1989: told you that it was inappropriate for you to undeleted in this case. Jcb (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and that's only the tip of the iceberg. Now we can write a novel with the list of your wrong deletions, non respect of standard admin work (responding to others, etc.) Yann (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually the reason for this report is your continuous disrespect for fellow admins. I think the links I posted here speak for themselves. Jcb (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and I did notify the user about this report, but they reverted the notification. Jcb (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
That revert and the original link were both inappropriate uses of Rollback.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Given the countless threads here shouldn't there be some sort of IBAN between Jcb and Yann as it seems they simply cannot work together?, Just a suggestion. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 16:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I have been avoiding interaction with them already for several years (e.g. not keep-closing their DRs, not reject-closing their UDRs), but somehow that's not the way Yann approaches the situation. Jcb (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
      • If Yann is the problem then maybe a one-way IBAN should be done ? .... I don't want to see neither of you blocked but this really does need to stop one way or another. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 16:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
      @Jcb: writing about Yann that "wiping his ass with the community seems to be his hobby" was not nice.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes I know, I could have chosen more polite words. But I think the links in this section (and the countless previous attacks by Yann, e.g. like 5 attempts already in the past years to get me desysoped), will probably make you understand my frustration and maybe will even make you forgive that I one time chose wording that was not so nice. Jcb (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
You should have been desysopped years ago. The only reason you're still here is your admin action count. You successfully conditioned the community to fear that Commons will fall apart because you contribute ~15% of all admin actions. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Blocked by 1989 for a week.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) Sadly, I've blocked them for a week. For someone who has been admin for the longest and provided great assistance throughout the years, this is highly unfortunate and the drama needs to stop. 1989 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Before I say anything more. In what way does this block helps with archiving your goal: stopping the drama? Natuur12 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I don’t have a goal. That was a general statement. What they do moving forward is up to them. 1989 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Then: what's the point of your block? Punishment? Prevention? It's pretty obvious that this block isn't going to solve anything between Jcb and Yann. Besides, by blocking only Yann you are rewarding Jcb's bad behavior. Also: your block isn't argument based. You merely make statements without providing evidence or support them with arguments. The accusation of vandalism isn't supported by any evidence. "Misuse of sysop tools, performing involved actions and vandalism" is the block reason after all. Misuse of sysop tools and performing involved admins are the same block reasons. Performing involved admin actions is a subgroup of misuse of sysop tools. A double jeopardy. Also, our blocking policy requires sufficient warning before blocking over behaviors issue's. I'll give you a chance to properly motivate your block or I'll lift the block for not complying with our blocking policy. (Punitive rather than preventive, no sufficient warning). Natuur12 (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The history they have with each other is irrelevant to me. I’m not rewarding anybody if that’s what you think. I blocked them based on their actions alone in which I’ve told them not to do. What’s the point of another warning when the deed has been done? They were in a dispute with another admin over a closure and should not have restored those files. For my block reason, as I said misuse of sysop tools, I described the type after to clarify. If you wish to remove the block, you can go on ahead. I will not put myself through this any longer. 1989 (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait, what? There’s a conflict between Yann and Jcb that ends with one of them banned — and somehow it’s Yann who is banned? Just wow. -- Tuválkin 17:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • They performed actions in an involved dispute. I told them to let an uninvolved admin make the restorations and closure and from their actions they refused. 1989 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Natuur12, the block is not in line with the blocking policy. @1989: Please remove the block. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I also agree with the removal of Yan's block. The alleged reasons for this action do not comply with our blocking policy: "misuse of sysop tools", what includes "performing involved actions", is not a reason for blocking (except in very rare cases), as well the user did not practice "vandalism" (as I see it, he was seeking to remove an inappropriate and offensive comment). Anyway, I agree with an IBAN between Jcb and Yann as a way to deal with this (old) conflict. Érico (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this block Yann reverted another administrator to disallow him from commenting on one of his DRs. Unacceptable. How anyone can bandy about this excuse of "blocks are meant to be preventative" when this has been going on for years is beyond me; the block is preventative. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support blocking Jcb as well, after reading the diff. Both of these users are out of line. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I also don't understand the reason for this block: what's the alleged abuse of the tools? The rollback? (While the undo button would have been preferable, the reason for the revert was obvious: the discussion had already been closed.) Or the restoration? Yann seems to have acted on a clear consensus, while the original deletion by Jcb seems to be against consensus: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:The Stand News. Maybe the deletion was right but the correct way for Jcb to proceed would be to open a new DR with better evidence, not to edit war on COM:UDR. At this point I see enough evidence to block Jcb but nothing wrong on Yann's end. Nemo 17:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    Clear consensus or not, they should not have been the one to do it and I’ve warned them not to. That was the point of them getting blocked. 1989 (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose blocking either of them, Symbol support vote.svg Support an IBAN between Yann and JCB (adhering to the bullet points set out at en:WP:IBAN), If either of them break this then blocks should be issued. IMHO an IBAN is the only sensible way of solving this .... blocks achieve nothing.Dave | Davey2010Talk 17:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I went ahead and un blocked Yannn. I explicitly asked the administrator who preformed the block to motivate why their block is in line with our block policy. This blocking admin said I could go ahead with unblocking Yann and didn't motivate his block any further. The comment they are referring too ("What’s to laugh about? You restored a template without closure of the discussion while in a dispute with Jcb about the closure. Seriously, let an uninvolved admin make the decisions. 1989 (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)") can hardly be called a warning. This is why:
  • The Oxford definition of a warning is telling or showing somebody that something bad or unpleasant may happen in the future so that they can try to avoid it.
  • The Cambridge definition is: something that makes you understand there is a possible danger or problem, especially one in the future:
  • The Oxford US deinifion is: a statement, an event, etc. telling someone that something bad or unpleasant may happen in the future so that they can try to avoid it
  • The element "something bad or unpleasant may happen"" is lacking in 1989 their comment. Therefor the condition "ensure that the user has been appropriately warned" in Commons:Blocking policy isn't met.
  • Blocks need to be preventive. It's an administrators duty to provide arguments why a block is preventive rather than punitive. As in: is there any reason provided why to assume that the applied block (both in reason and in lenght) contributes to preventing further unwanted behaviour. I understand Magog's comment but they as well didn't provided any valid argument about what this block actually prevents.
  • To conclude my statement: our blocking policy is pretty clear. "blocks are a last resort for behaviour that has the potential to damage Commons or disrupt its collegial atmosphere" . Other possible courses of action (like the mentioned interactionban) wheren't explored in this thread. Natuur12 (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with Natuur12, Tuvalkin (sic!), and Érico. Was, to say the least, a very strange decision to block Yann only. --A.Savin 19:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Back to topic

Now that Yann's block has been lifted and can now participate in this discussion, how do we resolve the dispute between these two prolific admins? I really don't think we should stand akimbo while this dispute continues. Frankly speaking, I don't think Yann should be the one to be restoring stuffs deleted by Jcb considering that both users have no good working relationship in the past few years. I have seen Yann doing this many times. Jcb on the other hand has been warned numerous times to be more diligent in using the deletion button but they seem to have shown no significant improvement. Admin tool is a privilege and not a right and where that privilege appears to have been abused multiple times, the community reserve the right to remove it. I don't want to see this privilege withdrawn from these users. Commons is a very lenient community, otherwise these users would have long been desysoped. The dispute between Yann and Jcb isn't good for our project considering that both users are admins and I honestly think the community should resolve it before it degenerate beyond repair. Regards. T CellsTalk 20:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have been avoiding interaction with them already for several years (e.g. not keep-closing their DRs, not reject-closing their UDRs). If Yann would do the same, we would not be here at this noticeboard so often. Jcb (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would Symbol support vote.svg Support the removal of Yann's administrative privileges, followed by an indefinite block from Commons. In my experience, Jcb has always been an honest, fair and impartial administrator. I cannot say the same about Yann, and the simplest answer to this particular problem would be to remove him (Yann) from the project. AshFriday (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Jcb: honest, fair and impartial. (sarcasm) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support blocking Jcb Here goes Jcb again: you're either with Jcb or against him. And if you're not with Jcb, he will attack you and try to get you desysopped or blocked. Also, Jcb has been operating as an admin without actual community support for a long time. As I believe it is hardly the bit that makes you an admin but instead the community support, reverting Jcb actually can't be wheel warring. Imagine that Jimbo would assign himself the admin bit again on Commons (he won't, but he could) and existing admins would start reverting his actions. I wouldn't call that wheel warring. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

IBAN proposal

Withdrawn - Having given this some thought I don't think this can be enforced and I think this may cause more issues than what it solves, If someone wants to recreate this they're more than welcome too but I don't believe this will help or work.

Also worth saying if either party comes here, provides rubbish evidence and gets blocked ... either party could very easily simply unblock themselves which would then create more mess - I don't want that too happen ...... I just feel going this route would cause more crap, I'm out of ideas tho now. Dave | Davey2010Talk 01:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

I propose Yann and Jcb are to be Interaction banned (IBANNED) indefinitely,

Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:
  • edit each other's user and user talk pages;
  • reply to each other in discussions;
  • make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Commons, directly or indirectly;
  • undo each other's edits to any page or file, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
  • use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.
  • IBANs can only be reported to ANU only and both parties will be limited to one post only - Both parties cannot post replies, If the community believe the posters evidence is not a violation then the poster will be blocked for 24hours which will increase each time the IBAN is violated.

If Jcb or Yann do any of the above then shorter blocks should happen and the length would increase each time the IBAN is violated. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 21:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nom - Yann and Jcb cannot or will not get on with each other and as blockings are pointless IMHO the next best solution is an IBAN between the 2,
I do want to make it clear that I'm not saying Yann is at fault or Jcb is at fault - A one-way IBAN could work but then that party would be upset and the drama would continue so therefore to make things easy IMHO it should be a two-way IBAN. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 21:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 1989 (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Talk. Consult. Any kind of blocks or bans are counter productive. They should be limited to vandals, or stubborn violators of policies, not any one who's willing to communicate and work.--Roy17 (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this won't work this way, avoiding interaction will be the best that's achievable. What when one party thinks that the other party violates the ban? Would we have an endless stream of reports on that? No, I don't think this is practical and I don't think this will do any good. And as long as from one side there is no intention at all to get things resolved, it won't help anyway. That is what really needs to change if we want to improve the situation. Jcb (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Technically en:WP:BANEX states you can only ask an admin to look at and deal with the violation however in this specific case that won't work .... so as such this page will be an exception,
To clarify: The poster can come here with strong solid diffs to present to the board - (this only must be one post and no replies), If the evidence is NOT a violation then that editor will be blocked for violating it, The person you are IBANNED with can make one post to state why they've not violated the IBAN but they too cannot post replies - So basically you both are limited to one post to this board when an IBAN is reported.
I've amended the above to include this, Thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 01:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see a significant alternative to the IBAN proposed above. Regards. T CellsTalk 22:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Curious what Yann thinks about this. It would surely be a shame to have two of our most active admins restrict their activity (when, if anything, we could use more active admins)... — Rhododendrites talk |  23:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

Миодраг Крагуљ

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Zombie gunner

User is constantly removing deletion tags from multiple images. For example, [5], [6],[7] claiming that there is no copyright violation. More diffs are available in the contribution history. They seem to be insistent that there is no copyvio, so I am just letting the admins know here.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Possibly the same person

Both users uploaded very similar images. File:National martial arts awards 2018.jpg & File:ARAVINDA PRAKASH.jpg. Both uploads do not have metadata and possibly a personal image. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 10:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

RAJESH DHAKA 2

see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by RAJESH DHAKA 2, uploading similar files under different filenames after I sent his files to DR. If the files are his own work, I believe that he would've said something at the DR about the ownership. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)