Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcut: COM:AN/U · COM:ANU

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
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 here.
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58

Translate this page

Commons discussion pages (index)

Commons Help desk Commons:Upload help Community-wide general discussion Copyright Proposals Graphics and photography discussion Image improvement Photography critiques Categories for discussion Deletion requests OTRS noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests #wikimedia-commons webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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.
• It is usually appropriate to 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.
  

User:A.Savin

Accusation of sockpuppetry against Tm and Tuvalkin

Pending

Here, in a DR discussion, User:A.Savin accused User:Tm of being a sockpuppet of mine (or the other way around). If User:Tm agrees, I would like this this claim to be tested by a check user and their findings to be reported publicly. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Such a check would not be in line with the Checkuser policy, which requires the tool "be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects" (emphasis mine); similarly, our local stance is that "Requests to run a check on yourself will be declined." If A. Savin has evidence of sockpuppetry, he needs to open an RfCU and present it. Otherwise, the unsubstantiated accusations are inappropriate. Эlcobbola _talk 17:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply, User:Elcobbola. I tried to find the policy on user checks by searching for "check user" but com:RFCU didn’t pop up (in hindsight, I forgot to filter the search for the right namespace). Let me retract the request for self check, then; I’ll await the results of the RfCU User:A.Savin is now expected to open. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There are always two possibilities: an RfCU, and a Duck test. The former is unavailable for users w/o CU rights, the second is, so I usually prefer the second; OK maybe I better would have wrote "sockpuppet or meatpuppet", because for me there is effectively very little difference, and a meatpuppet is always a different person and mostly also in a different household. --A.Savin 21:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I’d prefer to stay out of the matter and let it follow its course, but since nobody picked this up in more than 24 h, here’s my reaction to the above, adressing User:A.Savin’s two-fold statement:

• A “duck test” for the hypothesis that me and User:Tm are one and the same person, or two people in collusion, will fail after any kind of analysis (through or cursory) of the interactions between us two: While neither of us is a deletionist and both of us usually demand high standards from admins (which, I think, is what irks User:A.Savin), we have severely divergent approaches to many aspects of Commons work, and that fact have been plainly obvious in the many times we clashed over file renamings, overwritings, (lack of) categorization, and more. I’m negatively impressed that User:A.Savin keeps insisting in his accusation — one thing would be a hothead rant in a DR, to be quickly withdrawn of left aside, another is to persist (and quite smugly) in such a transparently preposterous accusation (meaning he feels entitled to acuse without proof and feels above scrutiny).
• User:A.Savin says that an RfCU «is unavailable for users w/o CU rights», meaning, I suppose, those users like himself. This is of course not so, as anyone may file in an RfCU, regardless of user rights; he seems to mean that only a user with check-user rights (necessarily an admin) could conduct the kind of test that would prove whether me and and User:Tm are indeed sockpuppets or not — that’s true but there are strict rules for when and how to conduct such tests: In his sentence above, User:A.Savin seems to be saying that, if he had CU-rights he’d simply check for me and User:Tm instead of resorting to a duck test — and that’s worrisome.

I await further input from uninvolved admins. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

One more edit to keep this from being archived for 3 more days. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

From what I see, the discussion on this DR is far from COM:MELLOW. Could User:A.Savin stop accusing other to "damage Commons" and/or of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry ? Either you have strong evidence to support your claims and you provide them here (or start an RfCU), or you must step down and apologize to both users for your rude comments. Pleclown (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Pleclown, indeed in that DR User:A.Savin’s behaviour was anything but COM:MELLOW (and against COM:AGF, too). Please note that User:A.Savin’s ammend to the nomination (posted at 02:06) admits that «even if some of these photos are relevant», «surely no need for a series of >100 similar shots». My keep-vote addressed this amendment defending that «Culling of near-dupes should be done» — which is exactly what User:A.Savin himself suggested. Yet he reacted the way he did, and kept escalating the tone and content of his contention. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Re-adding my comment. IPs are allowed to speak here, this is not a vote and I am not bypassing a block. I just want anonymity.

+1 any admin that is trolling and refuses to acknowledge their bad behaviour should resign the tools or be desysoped. Savin has been disruptive and vengeful for years, everyone can see it.

--92.23.67.68 12:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• "be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects"

I think making baseless accusations of socking certainly count as causing damage to the Wikimedia community and that should be seen as damaging the projects. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Accusing someone of sockpuppetry is a very serious accusation. If User:A.Savin has evidence, he should post it at COM:RFCU. Otherwise, he should retract his claim. Techman224^Talk 03:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't seriously meant (just some trolling), removed, I'm very sorry s.b. felt offended. --A.Savin 18:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not do this: Closed DRs should not be edited; threaded contributions which have replies should not be removed, as it would leave said replies hangining in a void, making the thread uncomprehensible and the repliers look silly. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

And please do not change the title of this thread. Also you, an administrator, did not made "just some trolling", you made an very serious accusation of 2 other users of being a sockpuppet and sockpuppeter without proof. After being confronted about your baseless accusations, you

1- Didnt reply in the original DR

2- Deleted the original accusations.

3- You tried to change the title of this thread.

In resume an behaviour unbecoming of an administrator and a gentleman. Tm (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Not going to state here anymore; I thought some days are enough 4all to cool down; if you want satisfaction, contact a sysop of your trust. --A.Savin 23:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Satisfaction, for want of a better word, is indeed sought; the said contact of a sysop is this very thread at AN/U, still pending but with a semblance of majority opinion among contributing admins already sketched. Looks like, 3:1, an accusation of sockputtetry is somewhat serious business.

As for cooling down, lets all remember that this was triggered in by a DR where I essentially agreed with your (amended) position and still you got so affronted that I dared to vote against your DR (as you often do) that you went ahead with a ludicrous accusation of sockpupettry, maybe trusting all other admins would have your back, but certainly not in a cool-headed manner.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• What do I see here? we talk about gentleman and I'm not in? I so fix this issue right now. For who talk about "gentleman" should not try nailed to the pillories others. Mistakes (of course when and if there are) are one of human characteristics. The votes of people that have nothing to do in a story are of course often suspect and always very frustrating although 1/ I agree that these votes are not less relevant 2/ I don't say it's, or it's not, the case here 3/ without proof, it's indeed better to choose carefully the words 4/ I have the intuition that plaintiffs can continue to live in spite of this small offense, so it should not be considered so terrible. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

¿Stalker?

Hi. I'm a Spanish WP user. The last days I have been stalked by puppets and unidentified users. You can see some of those stalkings here, here, por falta de etiqueta generalizada en Discusión:Mauricio Macri here. Simultaneously an anonimous IP (186.135.128.72) began to promote the masive deletion of images uploaded by me. Only those uploaded by me. The mentioned IP is very similar to one used by the people who are stalking me at the SP-WP. This one: 186.135.131.20. I search both with a IP-locator and the two are located in a little town of Cordoba (Argentina). ¿Can you establish if I am been stalking here? Thank you very much.--Roblespepe (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I received a new threat and I confirmed that's actually a stalking. Its a political threat. The message says that I'm a "zurdito", that I must stop editing "against Macri" and if not they will use rubber-bullets to stop me.--Roblespepe (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Roblespepe: Please e-mail [email protected] about this. Administrators cannot handle this threat. However, they may block the IPs that are threatening you though. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked. Yann (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yann, I see that you blocked 186.135.142.44. Note that the deletion requests to which Roblespepe refers above came from 186.135.128.72. CU shows me that they are very likely the same user. However, some of 186.135.128.72's DRs were correct -- two have been closed as deleted, one by me and one by User:Christian Ferrer. The others were reasonable mistakes or differences of opinion. In addition, I have nominated a different file of Roblespepe's for deletion (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dakar2016-Ruta.png), and corrected the licensing on several others. It looks to me like the IP user's work was entirely legitimate. Threats, of course, are not at all OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• If I remember correctly the one I deleted was a screenshot from a video, but in all case I found a previous version on the WEB with no free license. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

MehrdadFR

Moved from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#MehrdadFR
★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• MehrdadFR (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user

This user should be blocked for edit war and repeated offensive behavior (insult my parents, teachers and the ones who raised me, called me a "racist" and "hater", called me "pure Medieval bigot", delete my comments). The editor insists upload an incorrect map to spread propaganda of Iran's authoritarian regime. He is promoting edit wars in various Wikimedia projects to promote a lie and frequently insults those who disagree with him. Chronus (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Can someone do something??? Chronus (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I asked you to learn basics about polite behavior and after you started with insults, and you only reverted edits and continued with insults against whole country. You're one who is vandalizing and starting edit wars, not to mention removing reliable sources and defending pedophiles. --MehrdadFR (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

And keeps going... Chronus (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Insults from both sides. Please both stop any personal attack immediately. --Krd 09:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Krd: "From both sides"? Do you read the absurdities he wrote me? You've gotta be kidding me. Chronus (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Krd. The behavior of both wasn't good. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Insults in deletion request

Hello, on this page an unregistered user has requested some pictures for deletion. I don't mind him/her doing the request but I have serious reservations concerning the language used: "When questions relating to the meta:DICKish way the #monkeyselfie was trotted out at Wikimania began being asked the photo quietly disappeared from the conference; if that isn't evidence of the arseholish way the photo was being used at Wikimania I don't know what is -- yet, the arseholish photos are still on this very project!" - Could someone look into it? Kind regards Ziko (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Calling a horse a horse isn't offensive is it? I don't see anything actionable here. Natuur12 (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Natuur12. Our assessment would have been different, if the wording had been directed towards a specific person/user. But in regard to what happened at this Wikimania, these rough expressions are not that inappropriate, IMO. --Túrelio (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:OSX

Hi,

Could an administrator please take action against User:OSX? Reverting four DR closing without any motivation except for repeating his own viewpoint again is kinda disruptive, especially when you are the nom. (1, 2, 3 and 4) This led to two different closings (scope is a bit subjective so two different closings is hardly surprising) which made me practicly overrule Wdwd who already closed the DR's as kept. (I undid my closing's). Also, starting a lot of DR's for his own (and others) uploads just because he believes they are redundant isn't a good practice either since a lot of them are in scope imho. Natuur12 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks as though the reverted DR's have been fixed. These cars are not so bad to require all these deletion nominations. I supported OSX when he was nominating his own lesser quality cars for deletion, I don't think that many of this last batch are bad enough to waste time on. Joke follows: If you're going to go through a category worrying about "in focus, in shadow, in scope" etc., please go through COM:PENIS and its anatomical equivalents for a few weeks? I'd be delighted to worry about "too big, too small, etc." to clean out some of the +20,000 images of the exact same body parts, over and over. end joke. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The edits were reverted because they were done with the closing note, "no rationale for deletion". This is invalid because it is completely false. I had stated "low quality file", which correlates with Commons:Deletion policy#Redundant/bad quality. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Disagreeing with a valid (or invalid) closing isn't a reason to revert it. If you read the link you provide properly you can see the following line of text: "Redundant or low quality files only get deleted on a case by case basis after they are listed at Commons:Deletion requests." This implies that DR's regarding "redundant files" can be closed as kept. Natuur12 (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The closures on these DRs feel more like supervoting than a closure of the discussion. wdwd (talk · contribs) should either have closed the DRs as delete, or voted to keep. By closing as a keep, when there was a policy-based reason for deletion and no argument against is unseemly at the least. That is regardless of the merits of the images in question.

That said, OSX should not reverted - the correct first step to challenge the closure would have been ask the closing admin. I also feel OSX is far too keen on deleting files, and the closure of these DRs as "keep" is ultimately correct even if procedural errors took place.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no such thing as supervoting at Wikimedia Commons. Commons != en-wiki and admins often have to follow their own instincts instead of reflecting the consensus in a DR since people are often ignorant about our policy's. Natuur12 (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I know Commons is not en, but the principle of a supervote can occur anywhere - it is better to !vote yourself than close something against the flow of a debate. Its not like there is a legal concern here that would trump consensus. The closures may be "following the instincts" of the closing admin (and I agree with final result), but they simply state that the rationale is invalid (which is NOT true). A closure saying "image is not redundant" would have been better - disagreeing with the nomination not saying the nomination is invalid.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No it isn't since the workload is already hardly managable. If the few admins closing DR's have to comment on every simpel case because their closing won't reflect the nom's statement it is unworkable. It is perfectly okay to close such nominations as "keep" instead of commenting. Lawyering over the exact wording of the closing at an international project when the closers native language isn't English is a bit harsh. After you have closed a couple of thousand DR's you will probably agree with me. Natuur12 (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

My point here is that it prevents the nominator from having any sort of valid argument should he disagree with it. You cannot really sanction him, when he is correct that the closure is simply not true. It would be helpful if we had a proper venue to challenge "keep" closures, to mirror Commons:Undeletion requests.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

We already have such a venue. It is called the closing admins talk page and renominating the file(s) if the discussion with the closing admin is a stale providing a link the the relevant discussion. Natuur12 (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

INeverCry

Hey guys, INeverCry firstly start a attacking me here, just because I questioned his ambiguous votes. Them, I moved from there, as it was a totally personal and nothing related to the issue. Them he simply removed my comment questioning his vote at the beginning, vanishing the question about it.

He obviously have issues with me, as he already made a very questionable block (for 2 days just because a wrote that one volunteer is a girlfriend of other, and they are actually engaged ¬¬) , and made this attacks for free. Now his is reverting my reinsertions [1] [2] censoring my voice, just because it's very fishy his support, as you can see by his answers about it. -- RTA 19:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: "Care to waste some more time with these games? I've got all the time in the world amigo" - INeverCry [3], obviously he want to continue bother me, just because he have time... I don't have, and I think that posture is prejudicial for the community, -- RTA 19:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You're clearly trolling INeverCry. I suggest you drop it and stop trolling or face having a topic/interaction ban or worse, being blocked on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You're a good photographer. When you insult me or Beria, the only person you're disrespecting is you, yourself. --The Photographer (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If I knew that my nomination would cause all this turmoil, I would not make it. :( 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Its not about your nomination, I appreciate all your nominations, including nominations that you have made of Rodrigo pictures. This has nothing to do with it, this is like a puzzle. You need to know all the pieces to know that we are talking about. This has to do more with respect to my wife. --The Photographer (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)