Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems
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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vandalism [] |
User problems [] |
Blocks and protections [] |
Other [] |
|
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 | |||
126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 |
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
| ||
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 is mass-emptying categories based on interpretation and personal preference and not policy
[edit]Several threads on User talk:Rathfelder show this user unilaterally changing the category scheme. Sometimes this is helpful and it is certainly well-intentioned, but the entire rationale behind many of these decisions is off-base and the latest rash of edits (such as this) are removing categories from the parent category Category:Scientific journals by name, which is supposed to list all journals together (minus those in its subcategories, but either way, Rathfelder is not inserting it into the subcats, so it is entirely removed). There have been many such problems, including one that was raised at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_97#User_unilaterally_changing_and_emptying_categories,_not_responding_to_others'_concerns. See:
- User_talk:Rathfelder#Why_are_you_removing_date_categories_from_files?
- User_talk:Rathfelder#Why_are_you_removing_dates_from_files?
- User_talk:Rathfelder#Category_removal
- User_talk:Rathfelder#Why_are_you_emptying_a_category_again? (the issue that I raised above)
I think that this user's reasoning is wrong and these edits are undoing a lot of work by other users. The additions that Rathfelder makes and diffusion of large categories is useful, but the removal of work and unilateral emptying of categories is not and this problem has been ongoing for a long time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- I meant to add that in addition to doing some proper and useful diffusion alongside doing removals of valid and useful categories, this user is also inserting inaccuracies, such as labeling a journal as a book, which are two different kinds of publications in two different kinds of schemes. These are serious problems in judgement and undo a lot of useful work that others have done, making some categories much less useful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- I dont think there is a clear difference between scientific journals and books. Many of them physically are books and many are categorised as books. We could have a category for public health journals.
- I am attempting to categorise journals of all sorts by country and by year. I dont think Category:Scientific journals by name is very useful. Most of the content needs to be added to other categories. if fully populated there would be many thousand entries. My guess is that less than 1% were included before I started moving them. Journals quite often change their names over time and there is not agreement whether for example the name should include "The", so it isnt very helpful to sort them by name. Rathfelder (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think a category for journals by name is helpful as some sort of "reference work" or "glossary" where you can simply look up a journal name alphabetically. I don't know in what field of work you are, but I often find myself using alphabetical lists of all kinds at work. Nakonana (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- This is illustrative of the exact two complaints that I have above:
- You don't think something is useful, so you personally remove it.
- You think that since only a small percentage of a given kind of work is done, therefore you should undo the work that has been done (e.g. see on your talk page where I mention how most files here don't have descriptions in Korean: that's not justification for removing the ones that do!)
- These are the recurring issues that I have in a nutshell. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- While like many categorizations, there can be confusion at the edges, scientific journals are periodicals and treated differently by the bibliographic community. To go into a mass deletion because you don't think they're distinct is unreasonable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Concur with Prosfilaes. - Jmabel ! talk 15:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- So would people see a category like Category:Scientific journals by name, with perhaps 30,000 entries, as useful? Rathfelder (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- All X by name or X (flat list) categories are made for listing all such things in a big category. Even some categories that do have diffusion schemes still list all instances as subcategories, such as Category:Surnames. You cannot impose a top-down hierarchy model on all categories here: that's not how it works in principle or practice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Meh. I don't know how to use it, but there are people who do find it useful, and on a collaborative project, that's frequently enough reason to leave it alone. Moreover, there's many categories of the type, and it's not really an argument that should be had on scientific journals alone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- But doesnt it give rise to problems like Category:Books in French. Too crowded with 92,466 files. They arent even in alphabetical order. How would anyone find this helpful? Rathfelder (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Rathfelder: Probably mostly for category intersections. Just like many tags on sites that use those. - Jmabel ! talk 13:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- I dont understand. Can you give some examples? Rathfelder (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Rathfelder: have a look at Commons:PetScan/Generate list of Commons files. - Jmabel ! talk 02:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- I dont understand. Can you give some examples? Rathfelder (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Rathfelder: Probably mostly for category intersections. Just like many tags on sites that use those. - Jmabel ! talk 13:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- But doesnt it give rise to problems like Category:Books in French. Too crowded with 92,466 files. They arent even in alphabetical order. How would anyone find this helpful? Rathfelder (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- So would people see a category like Category:Scientific journals by name, with perhaps 30,000 entries, as useful? Rathfelder (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
User:AI Editor User
[edit]AI Editor User (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Repeated uploads of copyright violations. User had been formally warned twice. 0x0a (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Done Blocked for a week by Herbythyme. Yann (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Can someone please block this person already? Their unconstructive POV pushing is disruptive and is wasting the time of all concerned. Geoffroi 22:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- My point of view is neutral. It means that it is you who defends certain political ideas. I just want to find out what legislation has to be applied to the panorama objects in Crimea. There are already three versions: Ukrainian, Russian, and US! So how can people contribute to Wikimedia Commons if you don't know what copyright law should be used and ban people who are finding it out? Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- You're not finding anything out. You have no understanding of copyright, nor do you care. You won't listen to anyone. Nobody agrees or will agree with your political bullshit. Geoffroi 22:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, my point of view is neutral. It means that it is you who defends certain political ideas. There is a simple question: what copyright law should be in Crimea? Using Russian law means violating Ukrainian law. Somebody says that it should be US law. I have already said that the most reliable source in this case is Wikimedia's layer conclusion. So why don't you just show such a conclusion? Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- The question of what copyright law should be in Crimea is not relevant to Commons. And using Russian law doesn't mean violating Ukrainian law; if you obey Russian laws against murder in Crimea, you will be obeying Ukrainian laws against murder as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
He hates Russia and Russians. That's why he's here. You or another admin should block him so we don't waste more time on a discussion that's obviously going absolutely nowhere.
@Geoffroi [1]- No, I just say that according to international law, Crimea is Ukraine. The UN point of view is the neutral point of view. Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- You know nothing at all about copyright. All you know is that you hate Russians and you want to troll Commons about it. Geoffroi 22:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'd watch out for boomerang. Daniel isn't behaving perfectly, but neither is it okay to abuse him. Objecting to the invasion of Crimea is not hating Russians or even Russia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- He's casting legal aspersions above even on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. I linked their fair use policy and their legal noticeboard and without looking at it he said they're violating Ukrainian law. Sounds like a pov troll to me. Geoffroi 23:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'd watch out for boomerang. Daniel isn't behaving perfectly, but neither is it okay to abuse him. Objecting to the invasion of Crimea is not hating Russians or even Russia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- No, the UN point of view is not the neutral point of view. It is a point of view. We aren't Wikipedia, and we don't have the same NPOV rules, but in Wikipedia, you'd be forced to discuss the view of Ukraine, Russia and the rest of the world.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- You know nothing at all about copyright. All you know is that you hate Russians and you want to troll Commons about it. Geoffroi 22:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, my point of view is neutral. It means that it is you who defends certain political ideas. There is a simple question: what copyright law should be in Crimea? Using Russian law means violating Ukrainian law. Somebody says that it should be US law. I have already said that the most reliable source in this case is Wikimedia's layer conclusion. So why don't you just show such a conclusion? Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- You're not finding anything out. You have no understanding of copyright, nor do you care. You won't listen to anyone. Nobody agrees or will agree with your political bullshit. Geoffroi 22:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Done Topic banned: Quote: "Consider this a topic ban from discussing anything related to legal issues in Crimea (except for actual good-faith deletion discussion) for a period of 1 month."
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- Update, the user violated the topic ban and is now blocked locally for 1 year. The user has also been globally locked indefinitely on meta. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
MrGreen105
[edit]- User: MrGreen105 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:ShehbazSharif-new (cropped).png after final warning for doing so.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- The file that I posted was an extract from ANOTHER file by another user that I was unaware was deleted due to copyright violations. Aside from this extracted file, not a single file (given my scarce participation in Wikimedia Commons) that I have posted has been deleted due to copyright violations. I understand the issue with this extracted file; however, when I uploaded it, there was no deletion nomination for the original, so I hope you can understand. Besides this apparent flaw, I have upheld Wikimedia Commons guidelines to my knowledge. Thanks, MrGreen105 (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Seriously? This was the user's talkpage before last cleaning. I might have accepted that this file was a reasonable extract from another file, and that this was overzealous, but you claiming not a single file has been deleted due to copyright violations when I can see that talk page destroys any good faith I might have given you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- That is not what I claim (or intended to claim). I am referring to files that are CURRENTLY posted; I am aware of previous violations, which I have taken into account through the cessation of any posting that involves dubious copyright statuses. MrGreen105 (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- To say that your currently posted files haven't been deleted is tautological.
- That said, the issue here should be what happens going forward. I'm out the door right now; can someone work out how many recent uploads have been a problem (and I wouldn't count a derivative work of something that was already on Commons, we've pretty much all made that mistake). - Jmabel ! talk 13:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- That is not what I claim (or intended to claim). I am referring to files that are CURRENTLY posted; I am aware of previous violations, which I have taken into account through the cessation of any posting that involves dubious copyright statuses. MrGreen105 (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Seriously? This was the user's talkpage before last cleaning. I might have accepted that this file was a reasonable extract from another file, and that this was overzealous, but you claiming not a single file has been deleted due to copyright violations when I can see that talk page destroys any good faith I might have given you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Done. I blocked MrGreen for a week. Without his sentence "not a single file that I have posted has been deleted due to copyright violations." I would not block him. Taivo (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Taivo and @Prosfilaes: Thanks! — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Ingyames
[edit]Ingyames (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) uploads previously deleted files and removes SD templates after warning. --Ovruni (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hello Ovruni, thank you for your message and notification.
- I would like to clarify that the image I uploaded is a **professional portrait of myself**, published under **CC BY 4.0 license**, and is **relevant to my Wikidata item (Q136567729)**.
- The speedy deletion (SD) template was replaced with a **standard deletion request** according to Commons guidelines, so that the file can be properly reviewed by administrators. I had no intention of circumventing the rules; my goal is for the file to remain **legitimately and verifiably available** for Wikimedia-related projects.
- I am happy to provide any additional information if needed. Thank you for your understanding. Ingyames (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Done Blocked as spammer. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Toniker0501's removal of DR notices on PH congressmen images
[edit]I just discovered that Toniker0501 (talk · contribs) removed the deletion request tags that were added to the images of PH congressmen when I nominated those for deletion using VisualFileChange tool. For the removal actions, see this. IMO, the deletion request (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official photographs of members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines (2019)) is valid as it concerns the images being authored by a professional photographer from private sector instead of a government employee. Toniker0501 should have commented on the DR page if they oppose deletion, instead of removing valid DR tags. I'm requesting an admin to sanction this user, and revert all of their removals of DR tags on the nominated images. Kindly see also the images I nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official photographs of members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines (2016), as it seems the DR tags were removed, too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hello JWilz12345 I'm so sorry for doing that please revert the nominating deletion on the images of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official photographs of members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines (2016). Thank you!!! Toniker0501 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Toniker0501: This is not acceptable. You need to self-revert - the DR notices need to be on those files until the DR is closed. Any further disruption will result in a block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Okay I will do that Toniker0501 (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hello Pi.1415926535 it's all done!!! Toniker0501 (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Toniker0501: This is not acceptable. You need to self-revert - the DR notices need to be on those files until the DR is closed. Any further disruption will result in a block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
StPaul.jpg (talk · contribs) -- LTA Livioandronico2013, easily identifiable per DUCKtest as yet another sock. --A.Savin 11:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Done. I blocked him indefinitely, but did not revert or delete anything. Taivo (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Heroesdx9
[edit]Heroesdx9 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) - is uploading copyvios again. Has been previously blocked for the same. I did not have time yet to look at all the files, probably all their recent uploads need to be flushed. Jcb (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Done. User is blocked for a month. I deleted most remaining uploads speedily, the rest are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Uploads vast amounts of supposedly AI images that appear to be copyright laundering of non-free images Dronebogus (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Done I've deleted the AI images and blocked for a month. This isn't just about the AI junk - there are copyvios, personal attacks, and competence issues all mixed in. Any further AI hoax/copyvios and I will indef. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
COM:PENIS-only account Dronebogus (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Done Blocked and deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
continued to upload selfies after being warned. 0x0a (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- @0x0a, Done. Kadı Message 12:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Repeatedly uploading official portraits of politicians/royalties and claiming them as "own work". I sent a reminder to them to check the copyright statuses of these images and to not claim them as own work, however they've continued to upload such portraits afterwards (e.g. File:Queen Elizabeth II Final Portrait.jpg) with the own work claim. S5A-0043🚎 03:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Done. I blocked the user for a week and mass deleted all his/her contributions. Taivo (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
User:Jeff G. and blocking users by snitching on the admins.
[edit]User:Jeff G. reverted my abuse filter problem and threatend to block me by snitching on the admins! He needs to be instructed not to have admins block people without discussion first cause I'm tired of this nonsense. DioMuchaMan (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- You've only joined 8 hours ago... Nakonana (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- And you've already reported Jeff on the vandal noticeboard[2]. Nakonana (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- I know. But look, I'm very tired of Jeff G. snitching on me! I was focusing on uploading things since I've joined 8 hours ago like you said. DioMuchaMan (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Done This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Geoffroi 21:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- I know. But look, I'm very tired of Jeff G. snitching on me! I was focusing on uploading things since I've joined 8 hours ago like you said. DioMuchaMan (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- And you've already reported Jeff on the vandal noticeboard[2]. Nakonana (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
copyright violation by userMostabed
[edit]please delete all these uploads and block the user. Non of these are own works of user
rcenet deletes[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)