Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

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.
  

Abderitestatos (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Hi, as reported and discussed by various Wikimedian enthusiasts before, related to and and in contact with User:Abderitestatos, he is let's say down-the-line forcing since years his strictly very personal view of categorization, but plain-spoken without any consequences by Wikimedia administrators or honest mediation by the Wikimedia community, or even a 'learning effect' or accepting any consensus. Seriously asked for sanctions, please check long time edits by Special:Contributions/Abderitestatos, or/and, User talk:Abderitestatos related to Wikimedia categories, among days/months/years in Switzerland, objects including animals etc, churches, historical photographs, Latin names (see Turicum), and so on, btw just topics from his present talk dating back to 2008, missing additional category related talk pages :-(

His at the time being "strange behaviour" is repeated at least once a year since User:Abderitestatos's very first contributions, so again as of 14(th) and 15(th) January 2015, by once again re-categorizing Category:April 2012 in Switzerland. It may be pointed to again, that topic repeatedly was discussed the past years, and it seems really not to be adequately, as pointed to year for year, to create again subcategories as "1st of April 2012", and so on and so on, as not a international format, respectively, therefore not adequate to date related categories that are used within the Wikimedia projects.

So, ignored again, you may call it vandalism or trolling or incooperative behaviour or whatever, please try to impose sanctions having a minor "learning effect" , or not, as a sign to User:Abderitestatos to respect other Wikimedians opinions, or, in fact, at least to take notice of previous 'discussions', latter tagged as "'" — because User:Abderitestatos seems not to respect anyone other's point of view than his own, lacking common positions if only because it was yet a democratic minor consence, but by the majority of Wikimedians involved to his imho behaviour no longer to be tolerated. Kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There never was a consensus nor any other kind of decision against categorizing pictures of Switzerland by day, previous discussions on this matter petered out a long time ago; moreover, this template, made by Morio specifically to facillitate creation of such categories, has remained unobjected for about one year and a half now, just as the categories using it. After this amount of time it would certainly not seem too early to tidy up Category:April 2012 in Switzerland, that was quite a mess, with some pictures categorized by day, some by month, some by event, and some clearly over-categorized. --Abderitestatos (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment in real live an old man but not 'stupid', dear Administrators, having usenet/irc etc experiences since about the mid-1980s, as well working years ago in that what the today's generation calls 'IT' in the service of the biggest city and Bund, and before same department of 'the' 1970s bank in Switzerland. Just a personal detail that please in general may ignored as off-topic, but imho adequate for the community itself as incidental, though maybe not for all Wikimedians reading outside that Commons project i years ago began to appreciate very much.

hmmm .... Abderitestatos, completely disagree to your comment, please read yourselves the related talk User:Abderitestatos#Months in Switzerland. Allow to quote the final statement of about a dozen related comments to the talk mentioned and taking another Wikimedian and me imho a lot of time imho spended for nothing: Your course of action is inacceptable, emptying categories to request their being deleted by reasoning that they are empty. I do not think that any further discussing this with you would make much sense. --Abderitestatos (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC).

btw: that and some more directly related speedy deletions imho were occured, and thus agreed also by the Administrators that executed the speedy deletions.

And, by Abderitestatos also mentioned behaviour, hmmm ... what about, for example related to Category:Turicum to argue furtherwise: Category:Legio XXI Rapax reenactments at Turicum (Zürich) speedy-deleted in order of Abderitestatos, and marked as incorrectly named .... btw2: was created by me and related some 45 uploads by exclusively me, now as ... at Zurich, grammatically ok, but by the content at least 'strange', in addition to the also in general accepted redirect of Turicum (Zürich/Zurich) ot latter, imho missing a logical dedaction tree (don't know better term in English).

And honestly, please do not expect from me potentially, after experiences to 'change' to my mother tongue to explain/communicate by an IRC channel or separated talk etc.

Abderitestatos, continued thus that 'mediation' is not solved, the above mentioned behaviour as of 19 November 2015, so i remarked as checking my watchlist of uploaed files by me, see starting 00:10, 19 January 2015, i.e. Category:February 2012 in Switzerland to Category:13th February 2012 in Switzerland, and for the time being about 15 further, hmm 'edits', within nine minutes 00:19, 19 January 2015, in addition Category:March 2012 in Switzerland to Category:15th March 2012 in Switzerland ...

btw once more, exclusively files uploaded by me but no other Wikimedian; honestly not at least 'edit-warring' accepted as real reason trying honesty at least to mediate ... But still don't want to believe that should be in general a problem of the present Wikimedia Commons community that still is in silence, thus the logical conclusions may be deniable under other circumstances i experienced again the past days and years ago again and again, among them that i read/accept as it is just a few hours ago. Elsewise, sorry about my maybe missleading English still hoping it's resulting in no further community feedback, i'm really not of English language speaking origin but still learning. Regards Roland zh (talk) 03:55 [edit about 04:12 related to type/precise English], 19 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment closing from my side to precise, that nto 'just' my uploads on 19 January 2015 are affected, as not intended to also 'check' Abderitestatos' contributions in detail ... sorry, hoping that's the only detail not correctly to be mentioned: Abderitestatos about same time/period on 19 January 2015, using cat-a-lot affecting about maybe 50 edits, thx Roland zh (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by Abderitestatos reverted (just 1 single of about 12 of 21 Jan 15), sinking hope what Administrators do think about such imho trolling by Abderitestatos, related to Category:Bell tower of Grossmünster (Flèche). btw once more was not commented 'wyh' to remove that category :-(( Roland zh (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: File related of that single edit related to Flèche, btw was used as برج ناقوس ('the bell tower') by another Wikimedia project to be appreciated, and linked in the affected file, bye Roland zh (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and edit-warring continued thus asking YOU to mediate, by Abderitestatos some minutes ago ... but silencing above mentioned speaks for itself :-((( Roland zh (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any new sockputtets of Григорий225 for some time, but quite possibly George8885 (talk · contribs) is indeed one of them. YLSS (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-productive edit warring /St1995 15:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP just now rolled back Stas again. I have reverted the IP's revert. This is taking place on Laurelle Mehus. DLindsley ^{Need something?} 17:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done IP blocked, gallery protected indef (the IP is static). INeverCry 20:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

user tries to have his files deleted because on de.wp there's a dispute about whether or where his pictures in an article are approproate (or not). starts edit-war with other user about his "speedy deletion" tag [1]. argues that a remark "please send usage notification to: slartibertfass@yahoo.de" is an appendix of licence text. altogether: file under WP:POINT. --JD {æ} 15:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted & protected. Next time block. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. User is making legal threats on my talkpage after page protection. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New user, just Not Getting It with regards to uploading random web-found images. Past warnings. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuked. Thanks. Alan ^(talk) 16:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the way in which the user is directed towards me and towards those who do not think like him:

• See this comment
  • For clarity, I snipped the comment. You can see the full comment on the diff link above. -- Ram-Man 13:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this one just because I declined a photo, which then has been declined by other users

"This looks more like a childish revenge action. This is not a kindergarten.Please other opinions. --Hubertl 21:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC) "

Now I understand that take it seriously, but here you go too far! The way to do is offensive and to the point of paranoia. Ask a comment, thanks.--LivioAndronico talk 19:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that QI reviews it seems has become a dictatorship Austrian who promote each other photo --LivioAndronico talk 19:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertl has, in fact, a very long history of insulting behaviour in German wiki; however in this particular case, your tone ("dictatorship Austrian" etc.) isn't any better. --A.Savin 20:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply A.Savin, I meant that if you go on qi there are users that Austrians vote favorably photos (never declined) and rely on each other, I probably wrong word and I apologize. --LivioAndronico talk 20:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway phrases like :Commons stands in close relation to Wikipedia and is part of an encyclopedian projekt and not a children's birthday party.,Nobody ever will give you a shit for this!,he has to do more than just to do some simple photo shoots alike typical japanese tourists. and This looks more like a childish revenge action. This is not a kindergarten to name a few,I do not seem very delicate. --LivioAndronico talk 20:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like QI, FP, and VI are very good at bring about pettiness among our users. Granted that my only contact with those initiatives is from this very page and its kin, so maybe I’m being unfair, but maybe it is too much drama, compared against the actual interest of these awards for Commons in general? Maybe if QI, FP, and VI disappeared users could focus on categorization and other such non-confrontational curation tasks (and/or take their drama to Flickr or wherever), and maybe then ANs could be freed for actually important conflicts? Just saying… -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for me, I really wouldn't be sorry to see QI/FP/VC go. But I doubt that many of their current participants would take care of categories and maintenance tasks instead. Probably they simply would move on to Flickr, as self-adulation is the only motivation for many of them to do something on Commons. --A.Savin 21:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For me, I participate in QI (more than VI and FP) because I'm constantly frustrated by low quality images and having to sort through them. QI serves a purpose of filtering the good from bad, since it's very hard to delete bad images here on the commons. This is a service that could perhaps be done using some other process, but that does not exist right now. As for categories, QI makes users add basic categorization where they might otherwise add none. It will not ever do more than that, but it is something. And QI is a fairly smooth process with only the occasional childish behavior. In this case there was very nearly a violation of 3RR (See the history) over a few days instead of 24 hours. -- Ram-Man 13:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I copy what wrote Ram-Man that I think sums up the story: As for the photographer, he did properly categorize it and describe it as a theater mask. The issue wasn't the photographer here, who did exactly what is normally required, but an unreasonable objection by a reviewer who was claiming that this was a gargoyle, completely without any justification.

In Addition To from Hubertl (There are books published after death if you did not know):

• full comment is here (snipped by User:Ram-Man for clarity)

Everything to oppose the photo to which I gave the right name and category and that he without any visible source opposes. Also as I go around museums as if it was a birthday party for children, I ask ever to the guardians present what I photographer and I do not say words at random just to wars. I have declined photos by Poco a poco,C messier,Cccefalon,XRay,Ram-Man,Mattbuck (with him there was some problem quickly resolved because we're two intelligent people),Christian Ferrer etc. and I never had problems with them because they were opposed to the normal reasons, just ask them if I have never complained. But having declined a hole and persecuted just because it is said that a Roman mask is a Gargoyle (sic!) I find it ridiculous, over the offensive phrases. --LivioAndronico talk 09:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody have a opinion? --LivioAndronico talk 20:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Livioandronico2013 is well known for a lack of ability accepting critics of his own nominations when nominating pictures in QI or FP - his reactions are sometimes extremely rude and personel. He already have the highest rate of withdrawn picture, because of extremly problems to preselect his own works. Up to now, I have responded with equanimity, but this reaction was and is entirely outside the acceptable range. If you promote his pictures, you will be his very "dear" friend. Any critics is followed by an immediately personell discussion, even when the non-quality of the picture is obvious. Almost every declined picture - from whom ever critizised - stays declined.

His work as well as his responses clearly shows that he massively overestimates his personal skills on almost every level. This is reflected, among other things, that he, according to his user page, deems himself to be able to speak English at an almost native level. But it is quite obvious that his english skills are very, very low. I would like to emphasize that I don´t judge anyone based on his knowledge of languages, I just want to clarify here that Livio is a huge tendency to increase his own person. So also - up to the 15th of December - be pointed out that his Wikimediaaccount is older than eight years. Which he has deleted in the meantime.

I was in close contact to him until 2nd of January - he sends me 18 mails before - since asked me to promote a picture for FP. I said, that I would not do this, because it was not FP for me - but I said, that I won´t vote against. Since then, he is not my dear friend anymore.

• Livioandronico asserts, that I only assess pictures of other user - see the following gallery, I promoted the following:

• Until then, due to his technical lacks, I helped him with postprocessing the following pictures for him, all of them are QI now, one is FP:

, ,

Some of the most active participants in the QI-process told me directly by mail, that they do not want to nominate/decline/discuss pictures of Livioandronico any more, because Livio always starts a quarrel, he is not able to have an acceptable and friendly dispute, if his pictures are not promoted. Everyone is his dear XXX as long as you promote a picture, but you will become his enemy, unless you critisize his work. Even slightly.

A few days ago I asked Livio on his discussion page to refrain from personal attacks against me. His answer was a further increase by him, he also continued to attac Steindy in the same manner, because he set those personal attacks back.

A short list of his continuing, repetitive attacks, insults and his responses (original orthography):

• stop this stupid affermations
• I beleive that you have some serious problem
• To say that a statement is stupid is not an Personal attack, it is not personal
• And stop to check my pictures.I beleive that you have some serious problem
• Your opinions are often stupid and meaningless
• Trust me,you have problems

• This happened, because I demanded a correct file name and a correct categorization and too a proper description for the bust of a brute (sic!) In the meantime I repaired these problems, it takes me more then one hour. This, in fact, should be done by the photographer himself before a picture gets nominated.

• To demonstrate his very unpleasent manners, here some examples of problems with other users:

[2] - [3] - [4] - [5] - [6] - [7] - [8] - [9] [10] - [11] - [12] - [13] - [14]

• How does Livioandronico responses to critics at his own pictures? (not complete!)

• Typical rude dispute Counterparty:Slaunger
• Livioandronico2013: First thing YOUR policy does not interest me... Counterparty:mattbuck
• Livioandronico2013: What a bad Jebulon, do you think that bothers me? I cry? And 'better not worthy to have QI that not be worthy people. If you believe Oppose, I do it as a hobby, will not change my life one millimeter your childlike attitude. Counterparty:Jebulon]
• Livioandronico2013: Because I want that everyone see what I think of your bad way of doing, not just those who read your page. Counterparty:mattbuck]
• Livioandronico2013: It's very curious Code that you send in CR only my photos, strange no? However I did not say that I do not care about your vote, I wrote that everyone is free to think as prefer.Do you see? even if you thought it was the same symbol, and even after I explained why I cut the photo you continue in your idea what can I do? Each one remains of his idea, as you do not care of my explanations, because you stay on your opinion. Counterparty:Code]
• Livioandronico2013: No Code is the second, short memory? Or is personal or is something else that is better not to say Counterparty:Code]
• Livioandronico2013: No Jebulon,a Sony Alpha DSLR-A550 is very economic,is true. But please be serious(a personal attack? I don't care). Your are not constructive criticism but annoying (a personal attack? I don't care). My work is not improved? Is only a your personal opinion infact other people (I feel so much better than you) write me "Your todays set of images shows a big improvement of your skills, Livio. ". So,we want to do? I don't care.The only thing that interests me is that when I'll be a 53 years old, I'll be hope to be a useful person. Salutations Counterparty: Jebulon]
• Livioandronico2013: Over Jebulon? Non, non, monsieur vient de commencer Counterparty: Jebulon]
• Livioandronico2013: Just ask instead of declining, the crib I did, my brother and another father hospital. We have already had this discussion and are not so stupid as to put back something that I know I can not. Counterparty: Hubertl
• Livioandronico2013: You see Romanin? For one thing fixable you declines a photo,nobody works in this way here .... then do not complain. Counterparty: Jebulon
• Livioandronico2013: OK Jebulon,you win. These stories to children I have bored, I did it for fun, now I don't fun more! I'm really tired. My father always said, if you are not accepted changes air. Goodbye and good luck to all. I end up here. Counterparty: Jebulon
• Livioandronico2013: Ridiculous. Instead of judging ,upload your pictures, possibly not as bad your usual and after we can see. It is easy to judge the work of others without knowing it do Counterparty: Steindy
• Livioandronico2013: At least Ram is a photographer and has 40 Featured !!!. You? Ridiculous,real ridiculous. Counterparty: Steindy

• I am sure, these edits are not complete, in the meanwhile, within this thread he accused me beeing an Austrian dictator and being paranoid.

Unfortunately, nothing helps to find an collegiate level with him, except you promote his pictures positive. I think, I presented enough facts for his repetitive attacks and I can´t see another option than a noticeable pause for selfreflection. He is is in fact not just a single problem - in this particularly case with me, in the meantime his partizipation is really a big problem for a lot of other users. --Hubertl (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's that supposed to mean Hubertl? If I had discussions with other users (which are then closed with no problems) should be their to make a claim, too bad they did not! I never sent any emails for promoting FP, God forbid. You have a beautiful fantasy. That your criticisms are stupid? I confirm call a mask Roman - Gargoyle is stupid and call a horse - unicorn so is. I don't use phrases like (For you this is to respond with equanimity?) :Commons stands in close relation to Wikipedia and is part of an encyclopedian projekt and not a children's birthday party.,Nobody ever will give you a shit for this!,he has to do more than just to do some simple photo shoots alike typical japanese tourists. and This looks more like a childish revenge action. This is not a kindergarten! The same Jebulon wrote that categorization is correct but you insist.And where are all these people with whom I would have problems Hubertl, where? You write that "Some of the most active participants in the QI-process told me directly by mail, that they do not want to nominate/decline/discuss pictures of Livioandronico any more, because Livio always starts a quarrel" very strange that I have quarrel only with you! Where is this people? p.s. If you don't understand my English use google translator --LivioAndronico talk 22:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lazord00d (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
This user obviously cannot bear a DR on his uploads. Therefore, (s)he nominated the request page for deletion, removed all the DR templates and is trolling (as also in en.wikipedia). --Leyo 09:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the user a final warning, next time block. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steinsplitter's warning does not seem to be sufficient as the user continues to remove DR templates. --Leyo 13:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

58.167.231.149 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log)
I noticed this IP editor editing (constructively I should say) on two files related to russavia and also editing russavias talk page, including re-adding some of the boiler plate front matter on that page with intro image and archive system. The IP locates to the Australian continent. To me it looks very much like either russavia himself editing or another person acting on his behalf. If so, it is, as I understand, against the globan ban policy. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It very likely is him. If he wants to edit via IP, there's not much that can be done. The Australian IPs are dynamic, and even if you block them (those ranges usually have only one other IP editor, Jermboy27, and so soft rangeblocks are pretty safe), he's also been known to use open proxies. You could use protections for pages like his talk, but he can just go to another talkpage and another, etc. He's uploaded so many images, you certainly can't use protections successfully in that area. Also, I'd have a hard time being motivated to chase IPs that're editing constructively, and I don't see it as a productive use of any admin's time. I would block open proxies simply for being open proxies, but those are free for the scraping... INeverCry 21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The edits to the images were harmless. I reverted the "Commons administrator" image on his talk page as not helpful, but I'd be friendlier if I knew it was him. Still not convinced it is helpful. If someone restores it, I certainly won't be upset. I've restored other Russavia edits that were reverted by others, because they appeared to be possibly helpful. The ban is of Russavia, not of us. If any of us restores the contributions of any blocked or banned user, we are responsible for it. --Abd (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy or other requirement for unpaid Commons volunteers to run around after suspected Russavia IP edits. I am sure that WMF employees are carefully and thoughtfully tracking and permanently recording this if they feel it is important, or there are legal reasons to do so, but if they are constructive edits I suspect anyone focused on what is best for educational content creation would say "meh". There is plenty of good stuff to do, shall we get on with it? --Fæ (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) I do understand your point INeverCry about the disproportionate amount of resources one can use hunting the dynamic IPs, and as long as "some IP" edits constructively on some file pages, it does not give much meaning. I do think though that it would be sensible to protect User talk:Russavia such that IPs cannot edit them. Increases the barrier a bit because a new user would be needed. But when it is so obvious and the IP is also editing the user talk page it is just asking to be blocked, I would say. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yann Just protected the talk page. As I see it, issue resolved. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a moot point. Hopefully it can convert to a semi if the issue is mainly about what anon IPs are up to on that page. --Fæ (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]