Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks 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-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 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	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}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~2
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-05: ~39

Other:

• Duplicates: ~2
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~0
• Other speedy deletions: ~4
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~1
• Undeletion requests: ~21

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~56
• Interface admin: ~19
• Technical: ~1
• Template protection: ~36
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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.

Vandalism and edit waring by User talk:Broichmore

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

A while ago I had added several categories related to postcards and where the picture was taken to File:Restaurant Ship 'Cabrillo' and Venetian Gardens, Venice, Cal. Pc-002-832.tif. @Broichmore: subsequently removed the categories with the changeset message "Tidying up." Which I then reverted, leaving them a message on their talk page asking them to not remove the categories again since they are perfectly valid. They ignored my talk page message and then reverted my edit with the comment that they can remove the categories if they want to because they uploaded the image, which I don't think is a valid reason. Removing categories from images whole cloth for no reason and then continuing to do so despite the other person trying to discuss it is clearly vandalism, regardless of if the it's being done by the original uploader. So I'd appreciate it if an admin could tell @Broichmore: that they don't own images they upload, other people are allowed to put them in relevant categories, "tidying up" isn't a valid reason to edit war someone. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Normally, if an image is in Category:TIFF images with categorized JPGs, we don't add other topical categories to the TIFF, only to the corresponding JPEG. That's the whole point of this category: avoid having the image appear twice in each category, make the JPEG highly visible to be used, keep the TIFF to something editors, etc. can find if they need it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

And while you were both edit warring, no one here was vandalizing and, @Adamant1, I expect you to withdraw that accusation. - Jmabel ! talk 21:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:TIFF images with categorized JPGs is useless. It should not have existed in the first place. How are we to know that these TIFF files exist if they are not categorized? I have discovered many by luck, left alone, not linked to anything. Creating this category and uploading files without any other categories was a very bad idea. Yann (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I have to agree with Yann here. It doesn't make sense or follow the guidelines to have files in a single category. We don't do it with other file types either. For instance it's perfectly fine to put PNGs in the same category as JPGs. So I don't really see what the difference is. Maybe there's an extremely small benefit when it comes to "visual duplication in other categories", but that's far out weighed by people not knowing the images exist to begin with because they are essentially hidden in a single category no one is going to look through or cares about. As to the accusation of vandalism, I could be miss-remembering but I'm pretty sure I was blocked a while back for "vandalism" due to making similar types of edits. If it was vandalism when I did it then I don't see why it wouldn't be here. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: we know because they are linked from the respective JPEGs. There are relatively few reasons someone would need a TIFF unless they wanted a master version to manipulate, or a maximally accurate copy for print. It is a much less web-friendly format. - Jmabel ! talk 22:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Was there ever a discussion about it? If I look up "Tiff and JPEG" on the Village Pump there's upwards of results and none of the ones I looked at seem relevant. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I don't know where this was originally discussed. I think it was originally specific to a large import from the U.S. National Archives and then the principal was expanded.

But I'm more concerned here about you accusation that this is vandalism, because you brought this to COM:AN/U, not some place appropriate for discussing categorization policy. And I still think you ought to back down on that, quite independent of the categorization issue. I might or might not have bothered to do anything if this file crossed my path, but if I had then it would have been more or less what Broichmore did. So as far as I'm concerned, you've as good as called me a vandal. - Jmabel ! talk 00:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: OK. Broichmore had said at one point that it was discussed somewhere before and that there was consensus to do things that way. That seems wrong if it was originally specific to am import from the U.S. National Archives. I think your to hung up on the "vandal" thing though. As I said, I was blocked for doing similar edits a while ago due to them being "vandalism." So that's how I characterized it when I opened this for lack of a better description, and again, because an administrator said it was vandalism when I did the same type of edits myself.

That said if it's not vandalism, fine. I was simply phrasing it how an administrator had characterized similar edits in the past. I could really care less about what specific word you use to describe things though. I still don't think the categories should have been removed regardless. Although it at least makes more sense now at least for files from the Library of Congress, but I don't think every TIFF file with a corresponding JPEG image needs to be uncategorized. I certainly don't see how there's a consensus to do it that way more broadly if it was original only for the files related to the Library of Congress. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

An earlier discussion from 2011 onwards, for handling tiff files is at Category talk:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs.

There are probably other threads. This strategy of what we do with tiffs and jpegs is meant to resolve universal problems we have with all similar files, not just those from the LOC.

Here's a village pump note from 2013 by Tony Wills that puts the most important extra dimension to the discussion. (The problem of "duplicates" is not one simply of wasted storage space, or even of wasted resources in terms of time and effort that goes into describing/categorizing each one - these are only problems for us maintainers of the database entry. It is the logical problem of having two separate, probably different sets of descriptions, licensing and categories for exactly the same image - a real problem for users of the image (If both images have identical description pages then it makes no difference to the actual users of the image that we have two copies).)

I notice that you are continuing this edit war by reverting again my original edits, while this discussion which you started is ongoing; containing escalating accusations of ‘’borderline vandalism’’ within a few minutes to clearly vandalism. If you want to change things here, why, is this the forum chosen if your intent is not malicious. Broichmore (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not defending duplicate files here. I think they are a problem as much as the next guy. That's a separate issue then dealing with them by putting the files in a single category where no one can find them though, and like I've said, that's not how we handle duplicate images in any other instance. I don't see any consensus in any of the discussions you've linked to for only putting TIFF files in Category:TIFF images with categorized JPGs either. The discussion from Category talk:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs seems to be mostly unresolved and several people said they don't see why both TIFF and JPG files shouldn't both be in the relevant categories.

So I'll ask you again, where was it discussed and agreed on that TIFF files can, or should, only be categorized in Category:TIFF images with categorized JPGs? And maybe skip the side point about duplicate files in general this time since I don't even disagree they are a problem, but it's tangential to your solution of only putting the images in one category and then edit waring me over it.

Also, I'm not sure what your talking about when you say I'm continuing it. Your the one who continued reverting me after I left you the message on your talk page instead of replying. All you had to do was reply, provide a link to were it was decided that TIFF images should only go in a single category like I asked you for, and there wouldn't have been an issue. The whole process on here is to "revert and discuss," not ignore the second step and continue reverting. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Just a note: Category:LC TIF images with categorized JPGs is a different issue from the above discussion. In this category every TIFF image is linked to the corresponding .JPG image These are all Library of Congress images uploaded by Fæ. Krok6kola (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we can close this in terms of COM:AN/U, in that there is no problem with Broichmore's conduct, certainly not one meriting administrative sanction, and certainly nothing here amounts to vandalism. If someone want to open a discussion in an appropriate venue about either raising this approach to Category:TIFF images with categorized JPGs to a general guideline, saying it applies only to files from certain GLAMs, or getting rid of it entirely, fine, but that is not an administrative matter.

One last thing in terms of "vandalism": it is one thing to say that someone's edits, for example, "have the same effect as deliberate vandalism" or "might as well be vandalism," but when you accuse someone of actual vandalism, you are saying that they willfully and knowingly made edits with the intention of damaging Commons. That is a major charge. If sustained, and if there is any reason to think the account will edit again, it almost always means a block, usually means an indef block, and (if done by an admin) would probably be sufficient grounds for de-adminship. It is not a charge to be thrown around lightly. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify a point, I have no problem with the practice for something like GLAMs where clutter and organization is clearly an issue. I don't really see the point in it applying more broadly to every instance of someone uploading a TIFF and JPEG of the same image though. In this case there was only a couple of images in the relevant categories to begin with. So "cluttering" was a none issue. My main problem was Broichmore's refusal to discuss things and instance that they were right simply because they uploaded the images, which ultimately has nothing to do with the broader subject. Although the whole thing also just super petty and benial to begin with. So I'm not going to push it beyond this last message either. Good to know that all I have to do to get my way if I ever get in a disagreement with someone is ignore their messages and continue reverting them while claiming I own the files though. Duly noted. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT MAKE FURTHER EDITS TO THIS SECTION. If you really have some truly relevant AN/U matter to discuss here, start a subsection. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Continuing Copyrights violation

even after receiving warning for uploading violating copyrights rules by user Behnam9395 still act continues. Main theme are art works such as Tangetikabkazerun15.jpg / Tangetikabkazerun11.jpg and needs admin acts / also files added delete tags. [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Shams948 (continued)

Copy from the last page:

No admin reacted, so user continues to open baseless, illiterate categories. Can someone please help? --Orijentolog (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done? One week block. Next block can be longer. Last edits are reverted. Taivo (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Korishoulddie99

Vandal. 186.174.134.132 04:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Their single upload should probably be deleted since it's clearly a selfie. I don't know if that alone would qualify them as a vandal at this point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This comment shows you look superfically at things. Look at user name, file history, how it was used (in Wikidata and Wikipedia)... 186.174.134.132 04:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the user name is about, but the file isn't being used on Wikidata or Wikipedia. So I don't see an issue there. You really should have been more descriptive when you created this if there was actually an issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

At least notice that the file describes "penis", "pig", "monster" etc! 186.174.134.132 04:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Also learn to check the global contributions of vandals, including those deleted within minutes... 186.174.134.132 04:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know "penis" isn't a banned word on here. So I'm not sure what your point is. You clearly having an issue describing the problem though. BTW, it seems that you didn't notify the user about this ANU complaint. I'll spare you the comment about how you should learn to file an ANU complaint properly next time before opening one, but please do it in the future. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the account indefinitely, because it was created solely to harass somebody. In addition username: for me every username with "should die" in name is very bad. Taivo (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree about the user name. For some reason I read it as one long word that made no sense. Totally inappropriate user name though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Manchanda Realtorss

Manchanda Realtorss (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) - Spam account. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done User warned, page deleted. Yann (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Requesting mass deletion of @DeepstoneV: 's uploads.

I have nominated their recently uploaded pictures [1][2] for deletion due to ambiguous copyright information. And a cursory glance at their contribution reveals that almost all of their uploads are copyright violations in one form or another.

For example:

• This is a zoomed in version of this file [3]

• This is a higher contrast version of this [4]

To save the community's time i believe any willing admin should scrutinise their uploads. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• I've went ahead and tagged most of their uploads for deletionRatnahastin (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think File:Asar_Mahaal.jpg is "a zoomed in version" of [5]. Seeing the sky and the resolution, these are different pictures. Yann (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Concur. Lots of differences (staining of the seawall, marks on walls near some of the windows, a power-line running to the post front-center, appearance of the tree to the right of the building. DMacks (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Jinmez23

Jinmez23 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Yann warned the user once more. All contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Gerwin171717

Gerwin171717 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Upload Copyrighted Video game files. メイド理世 (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Dronebogus name calling and bad faith comment

Dronebogus reported my post as porn. I point out images that are more obviously porn and he started name calling in bad faith NuManDavid (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Just an FYI, but COM:PORN is a thing and at some of the files in that DR clearly seem to cross the line. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

BTW, you should also notify @Dronebogus: about this on their talk page per the text at the top "Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s)." Although I'm sure they know about it now since I just pinged them, but it's still good practice regardless. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Literally all I said was “I don’t know why you’re citing the only two quality videos of gay anal sex on Commons in contrast to your low-quality heterosexual pics, unless it’s to come across as homophobic.” (Emphasis retroactive) Instead of refuting or at least just respectfully disagreeing with them, you report me. This is a frivolous bad-faith request; if you don’t want your posts nominated for deletion as porn, or people to think you’re homophobic, don’t post porn or make comparisons that obviously could be read as homophobic (which I never called the user or even thought the user was). Dronebogus (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done No admin action needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I warned NuManDavid and deleted the files. Yann (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)