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-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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	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	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

^{Translate this page}

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:Raid5

Latest comment: 9 months ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Raid5 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

The user “Raid5” is constantly “pinging” (spamming) my account with alerts. (See a screenshot.)

Of the 25 (twenty-five) last alerts, 25 are caused by “Raid5”. This kind of attention seeking is unpleasant and compulsive, and most of those are merely repetitive nitpicking. The user seems to me to think this as a game or as a social media, like Instagram, where you “follow” certain users and comment on everything they do. Unfortunartely that feels like persecution or cyberbullying (cf. Griefing).

If I am indeed thoroughly so evil and wretch’d, why is it up to this one user, Raid5, to keep calling it?

This user is very quick to comment and modify anything I do here. For instance, when I uploaded the screenshot, it took less than 2 hours for the user to comment it on my talk page in a foreign language (in a condescending tone) and to make a pointless revision, merely in order to seek attention.

I would guess the quality of my contributions here is neither better nor worse than that of most other users in the community. However, that user has been targeting me for a long period of time, as it feels to me, with the intention to drive away an experienced user.

Another problem have been vexatious complaints about missing “essential information” (one example) and unfounded deletion requests (one example).

There are other uploaders who care less about templates and typography and source information than I do, but I seem to be the only one who is constantly scolded and alerted by “Raid5.”

Yet another issue are removals of relevant categories, like this one and this one, which I do not understand.

Please prevent this user from alerting me constantly (especially in edit summaries — it’s rather pointless). Most of those demands are irrelevant or matters of taste, or more general issues which many contributors could equally be blamed for, and which could well be attended to tacitly. I have noted the user’s demands, but constant harrassment does not recommend them. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mlang.Finn: Hi, and welcome. In Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo, I see a "Muted users" section. You might want to use that. Help is at mw:Help:Notifications#mute. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 02:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jeff G.: I doubt muting would meet the need here. I don't think Mlang.Finn would be happier to simply go without hearing about it as someone removed categories from their uploads that they considered correct, and nominated their uploads for deletion on arguable grounds. - Jmabel ! talk 02:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mlang.Finn: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=840025890&oldid=839970674&title=File%3ADelegation-for-Kekkonen-1973.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AETYK-Finland-delegation-1975.jpg&diff=840026320&oldid=839966990 (the examples of removal of categories) are arguably correct, unless you are saying that Urho Kekkonen is not a Finnish politician. I take it you wanted the category there because of other politicians in the photo. This particular issue of COM:OVERCAT is controversial. I'd probably have (in Raid5's place) left the category there or (in yours) restored it, and in either case would have added a comment that it refers to other politicians in the photo.

I've looked a bit at the other diffs and images here; I can't imagine a major sanction here. To be honest, the single most egregious thing I see here is one of your edit summaries ([1] beginning "CAN YOU READ?" (caps in original). I can understand why you may have been frustrated, but this doesn't look like a one-sided issue to me.

I'm aware I could give this more study, but I'm hoping to hear from an admin who has been more involved over time.

If you'd both agree to an interaction ban (stay away from each other's uploads) I'd be fine with that. - Jmabel ! talk 02:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel: Poistin kategorian, ettei Urho Kekkonen olisi ollut yhtä aikaa pää- ja alaluokassa. Kumosin muokkaukseni, koska kuvassa oli myös muita poliitikkoja.
Mlang.Finniltä on usein poistettu muokkausoikeus suomenkielisessä Wikipediassa häiriköivän muokkaustyylin, muokkaussotimisen, henkilökohtaisten hyökkäysten ja eston kiertämisen takia (Mlang.Finnin estoloki). Hän puolustelee sivistymätöntä käytöstään pitkällä kokemuksellaan Wikipediassa (Pohdintaa, Unblockables: ”How long they have been on Wikipedia, often stated more nobly as "length of service," will usually be in the mix. This may seem odd as we expect our long-term users to understand policy better than the newbies who would have been blocked for the same offense, but somehow this makes sense to some users.”). ”Muokkaajat, joilla ei ole riittäviä sosiaalisia taitoja saattavat aiheuttaa häiriötä. Vaikka häiriköinti ei olisikaan tahallista, se on silti haitallista Wikipedialle.” Suomenkielisessä Wikipediassa usea muokkaaja on puuttunut hänen huonoon toimintaansa.
Muiden käyttäjien neuvonnasta huolimatta Commonsissa ei ole kiinnitetty tarpeeksi huomiota hänen edelleen jatkuvaan vaivihkaiseen muokkaamiseen: hän muuttaa https-osoitteita http-muotoon ilman perustelua, poistelee pakonomaisesti otsikoita (Lähteen ilmoittaminen). Hänelle on vaikeata keskustella ja toimia yhteistyössä muiden kanssa. Commonsissa Mlang.Finn on syyllistynyt henkilökohtaisiin hyökkäyksiin esittämällä vakavia syytöksiä ilman todisteita, nimittelemällä minua toistuvasti naiseksi, pilkkaamalla käyttäjätunnukseni merkitystä, syyttämällä sukkanukkeilusta, vaikka häntä huomautettiin lukuisia kertoja. (Toisten käyttäjien syyttely, Deletion requests/File:Lilla-Teatern-1959.jpg, Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lilla-Teatern-1959.jpg).
”Another problem have been --- and unfounded deletion requests (one example).” – Category:Undelete in 2083, Tallentamasi kuvien linkit luokassa Undelete in 2083.
”comment it on my talk page in a foreign language” – User:Mlang.Finn ”I’m a scholar from Finland.” • Käyttäjä:Mlang.Finn ”Tämän käyttäjän äidinkieli on suomi.”
Pyydän, että ylläpito puuttuisi hänen projektille vahingolliseen toimintaansa ja huonoon käytökseensä. raid5 23:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't read Finnish at all; the following is via Google Translate. - Jmabel ! talk 00:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)I removed the category, so that Urho Kekkonen would not have been in the main and lower category at the same time. I reversed my edit because there were also other politicians in the picture.Reply

Mlang.Finn's editing rights have often been removed on the Finnish Wikipedia due to disruptive editing style, editing wars, personal attacks and evading the block (Mlang.Finn's block log). He defends his uncivilized behavior with his long experience on Wikipedia (Reflection, Unblockables: "How long they have been on Wikipedia, often stated more nobly as "length of service," will usually be in the mix. This may seem Odd as we expect our long-term users to understand policy better than the newbies who would have been blocked for the same offense, but Somehow this makes sense to some users."). "Editors who don't have enough social skills can cause a disturbance. Even if the interference is not intentional, it is still harmful to Wikipedia.” In the Finnish Wikipedia, several editors have intervened in his bad actions.

Despite the advice of other users, not enough attention has been paid in Commons to his still continuous stealthy editing: he changes https addresses to http format without justification, compulsively deletes headers (Attribution). It is difficult for him to discuss and cooperate with others. In Commons, Mlang.Finn has committed personal attacks by making serious accusations without evidence, repeatedly calling me a woman, mocking the meaning of my username, accusing me of sock puppetry despite being pointed out numerous times. (Blaming other users, Deletion requests/File:Lilla-Teatern-1959.jpg, Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lilla-Teatern-1959.jpg).

"Another problem have been --- and unfounded deletion requests (one example)." – Category:Undelete in 2083, Links to your saved images in the category Undelete in 2083.

"comment it on my talk page in a foreign language" - User:Mlang.Finn "I'm a Scholar from Finland." • User:Mlang.Finn "This user's native language is Finnish."

I ask that maintenance intervene in his project-damaging activities and bad behavior. raid5 23:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

END TRANSLATION - Jmabel ! talk 00:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kallerna: as the only Finnish-speaking Commons admin, perhaps you can do better here than anyone else. - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

To me it seems quite obvious that user raid5 is not the problem, it is the other way. If bad behavior continues, Mlang.Finn should be blocked for a short period of time. —kallerna (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

sock user

Latest comment: 9 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

டாக்டர் வா.செ.செல்வம் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user has a sock தென்னை மருத்துவர் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user and good to delete both users' uploads. Both are blocked in ta.wiki. I report for admin intervention. Antan O 14:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done Blocked. Master account warned, both files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

unblock my ip address and protect my account for future deletion. I need to publish this article தென்னை மருத்துவர் it's very important to know future generation in agriculture தென்னை மருத்துவர் (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done Sure. @தென்னை மருத்துவர்: Since you don't understand, I also blocked your other account for one week. Please read COM:SCOPE. It will be longer next time. Yann (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

User:Os1040

Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Os1040 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is another sock of Oscareduardo10 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. They uploaded File:Oscareduardo10 Logo.png. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_109#Socks_of_IvanRamonTrillos for more context. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 22:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done Blocked. File deleted, and protected against recreation. Yann (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I'd been leaving it unprotected so I can spot the new socks, lol. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

RZuo

Latest comment: 9 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

User RZuo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has appeared to have continually used their rollback rights on reverting edits that are not vandalism or clear mistakes by other users recently [2], violating the COM:RBK policy limiting the use of rollback to combating vandalism [...] own mistaken edits or the clearly mistaken edits of another user. It should only be used for clear-cut cases, and without any explanation or edit summary. Since the user has been repeatedly blocked for incivil behaviour across multiple sites, I am unwilling to engage in further arguments with the user, and thus directly reporting this case to ANU for third-party review. Luciferian Thomas 02:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@LuciferianThomas: "repeatedly" and a link to all of their contributions is basically saying "go work it out for yourself". Please link at least three examples of what you consider to be inappropriate rollbacks by RZuo. - Jmabel ! talk 04:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

All reverts since mid January. None of those are reverting vandalism or clear mistakes. Luciferian Thomas 05:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please provide diffs. Abzeronow (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

And remember, not every revert is a rollback. The " vandalism or clear mistakes" applies to the rollback tool, not to all reversions. - Jmabel ! talk 20:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please do note that the extra link I have provided has filtered their contribution with mw-rollback, which are definitely revert edits using the rollback tool. If you had even looked even one more second on the link I provided, you would have noticed that.

Diffs from the recent two weeks:

842266448: Reverting Shizhao's notifications for another user on the other user's talk page without valid reason. Even if images are kept in deletion discussions, the notifications for deletion are still not "clearly vandalism", and as sent according to procedural requirements and thus not "clear mistakes".
844337427: Reverting Jeff G.'s category move from a category requested for deletion by creator to a category with same function without reason. While they did notice their mistakes, it still shows their lack of thought before using the revert tool, reverting non-vandalism and non-mistake edits.
845355575: Reverting my reasoned removal of the category move request, again without reasoning or further discussion. Again, non-vandalism and non-mistake edits.

From further down the history lane:

762341849 (May 2023): Reverting Yrellag's removal of categories on a file, while on RZuo's next edit removing most categories that Yrellag removed again. Whilst RZuo did warn Yrellag's removal as vandalism, but if they basically repeat the edit that they reverted, then the reverted edit is clearly not just vandalism or a clear mistake.

The above show a clear pattern of failure to assume good faith, or to identify non-vandalism from vandalism. Luciferian Thomas 02:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@LuciferianThomas: I think you are reading way too much into this. It looks like RZuo is a too quick to use the rollback tool rather than revert by other means, but none of this looks to me like big deal.

@RZuo: I believe LuciferianThomas is correct on one thing here: you should not use the rollback tool except for vandalism & blatant errors. Otherwise, you should revert the same way someone would if they didn't have this too (and a decent edit summary is usually in order). Probably calls for being more careful.

[to all]: but it certainly doesn't call for an administrative sanction. - 06:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs)

Considering that the user has been partially blocked across multiple sites recently due to aggressive behaviour against other users (enwiki, zhwiki, yuewiki), there is no way that one can possibly believe that the user would even try to communicate about their actions. Per COM:RBK, Users misusing the rollback tool to revert constructive edits may have their rollback permission revoked. The same applies for its use for edit warring or content disputes. It is only reasonable to believe that they will not communicate about their use of their rollback rights, or even have a high probability in bringing their uncivilised behaviour on the other sites that blocked them to here on Commons if questioned upon. It is just impossible to assume good faith on a user who has already been known to cause trouble across sites. --Luciferian Thomas 12:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

2405:201:6014:ca::/64

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User: 2405:201:6014:ca::/64 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log)
Reasons for reporting: Evasion of block by Adv Sh Mishra to deface their RFCU; see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 109#Adv Sh Mishra and Ansh2512 for history.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 18:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Elie Mulenda

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User: Elie Mulenda (talk • contribs • WHOIS • Mulenda.html RBL • • guc • Mulenda stalktoy • block user • block log)
Reasons for reporting: Uploaded a bunch of copyvio for a fourth time.

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done Blocked for a week. All files already nominated. Yann (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

User:Jjsgood35

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Jjsgood35 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user keeps uploading copyvio or unsourced photos even after being warned. All remaining photos should be checked by administrator. Pierre cb (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done Blocked for a week, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jjsgood35‎. Yann (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Person 18.0

Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Person_18.0 keeps tagging a picture of a menorah with a star of David on it as a Zionist symbol. See latest here. This user has been blocked before for inappropriately applying this template, as well as similar ones about China and Russia. Just as they have edit-warred over marking every single image of the letter Z as a symbol of Russian aggression, they are marking every random picture of a Jewish star as a Zionist symbol. Zanahary (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

More diffs: [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] Zanahary (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Uploads by Bigguy637

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have some concerns regarding some uploads from a user, User:Bigguy637. I reached out to them last night with a message on their talk page, regarding their incorrect use of the 'own work' for author/source, but I'm unsure how to discuss and advise on the use of the correct content license; as they've also been using "self|cc-zero" (The Creative Commons 0, with that extra "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it..." box around it.), which wouldn't be correct as they're all safety symbols, from years old design standards and legal acts, that aren't their own work, per Commons:Own work.

I also have some concerns that some of their uploads are not-free works and prohibited on the Commons. I've nominated a batch for deletion here Commons:Deletion requests/Portal 2 Safety Signs that I'm very confident on, but someone who has a better understanding of copyright, threshold of originality, etc might need to take a look. The Navigators (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

User:Thesazh

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thesazh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Upload non-free movie poster. メイド理世 (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done. I warned the user. Some copyvios are already deleted and I'll delete them more. Taivo (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

User:NewEraEducationDelhi

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

NewEraEducationDelhi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Upload advertising file. メイド理世 (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done. I blocked the user indefinitely, partly due to inappropriate username. Taivo (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

FYI: So many socks

Latest comment: 9 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have requested Check user at meta and found many socks. A few of them already uploaded some images that were deleted and again uploaded here. Rest of the images are clear copyvio.

Group 1

SwamyAyya566 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, ஸ்டீவன் ஸ்கால் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, AryaPadaiKadanthaAurelius (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, DonParlo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, كريشنا الداعي (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Group 2

17289ha (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, Tamil career advise (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, சூர்யநாராயணன் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, 1gy9No (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, Edu-info-goodwriting (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, Btytatg (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

I hope admins can take proper action. Antan O 14:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@AntanO: it is not clear exactly what action you are requesting. Deletion of all uploads by these accounts as copyvios, or something else? - Jmabel ! talk 00:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Usually, we have to tag for deletion. Is it possible to delete copyvios images that already deleted, and uploaded again by 17289ha (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . Also, screen capture images found at Btytatg (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . ஸ்டீவன் ஸ்கால் (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) and AryaPadaiKadanthaAurelius (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) also uploaded copyvios. In addition, is it possible to block these IDs due to copyvios and socks that found at Meta? Antan O 05:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Every copyvivo in meta is deleted. In wikipidea, these are uploaded as non-free images with appropriate tags, logo, etc.

So, No use in blocking the IDs here. Can be blocked in meta alone 17289ha (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Olivenza

Latest comment: 9 months ago33 comments4 people in discussion

For many years (almost a decade, you can check here) the Tm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) user has monopolized the category of the Spanish municipality of Olivenza, dominating what appears and what does not appear. He has turned it into a personal whim, where no one else can edit differently.

Up to five users (@Jl FilpoC: , @Discasto: , @Lopezsuarez: , @J.M.Domingo: and myself) have opposed their criteria in the last years, and Tm simply incurs massive rollbacks. Given that we are facing a with a situation that has been repeated for years, which is sabotage, I ask that an administrator intervene and put an end to this anomaly. CFA1877 (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

When you bring up an issue to ANU, you are supposed to notify the user of this. I took the liberty of doing so since you did not. As Tm has said, Olivenza is disputed territory that is claimed by both Portugal and Spain, and de facto part of Spain. Having that noted in the category page is useful for historical context. Abzeronow (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You forget to mention that one user reverted edits like your in 2007, another user and administratir added in 2008 one of the categories that you are trying to surpress, and that the same administrator protected the page in 2009 for similar edits (that repeated itself in 2010, and reverted by 3 other users besides me). That in 2013 another reversion by an administrator of edits similar to yours

That in 2015 the present categories were added by another user and there have been there since then.

You also forget to mention that almost all (or all?) the users you say are deleted these categories are spanish and that there are zero portugueses that readded those categories besides me.

You also forget to mention that you are attempting to delete any mention of it territorial dispute

You also know perfectly well that this was previously discussed here in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_103#Tm_and_his_edits_concerning_files_related_to_Olivenza and there was no objections by any administrator to them. also this edits, as present, were not added by me but other user in 2015 and have been here since then. Tm (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Abzeronow: , the user Tm considers the category as their private property, regardless of the historical issue, it is a much worse thing. Only what he likes to appear...appears. Constantly revert any changes made by other users. That's not normal. CFA1877 (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you provide diffs where Tm says he owns the category? If changes by other users amount to trying to revert any mention of a territorial dispute, I can see why Tm would so. Abzeronow (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Abzeronow: For example, Tm introduces redundant categories. It insists on introducing the category [[Category:Disputed territories]], when at the same time there are the categories [[Category:Territorial disputes of Spain]] and [[Category:Territorial disputes of Portugal]]...which are already part of [[Category:Disputed territories]]. Seriously? Where is the problem in not being redundant?

Then, there is an entry in the category that comes from the time when Wikidata did not exist. I consider that it is not necessary now, since Wikidata exists. I have observed that in many categories these types of entries have been eliminated for this reason that I point out. But if he doesn't agree, I'm willing to listen to his arguments. However. Tm should argue it and not just revert everything massively, as he has done for a decade with everything. CFA1877 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You claim that i "insists on introducing the category Category:Disputed territories, when at the same time there are the categories Category:Territorial disputes of Spain and Category:Territorial disputes of Portugal. Curious then that that i removed it, after you explained it for the first time as i said after you decided to talk i said that i removed it "as grandparent of Territorial disputes of Portugal and Territorial disputes of Spain". Tm (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@CFA1877: If you keep doing reverts like https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AOlivenza&diff=847599274&oldid=847599184, I will have to fully protect the category page until this comes to a resolution. Abzeronow (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abzeronow: Explain that to Tm, who cannot wait for the end of this discussion and feels the need to make adhoc changes. I am willing to give in, but it would be nice if Tm facilitated the environment. CFA1877 (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, I did check the page history, and the message wasn't there in 2022 with what appears to be the last stable version. So that revert does appear to be fine. Although Former Munipalities of Portugal and Alentejo categories should be put back in since those were essentially there in 2022. @Tm: Abzeronow (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can answer for that. There no word of me claiming i own this category (or any other). i was falsely accused by another user of being a portuguese irredentist ("cannot use Commons as a platform to promote or spread your political views (irredentism or any other kind).", just because i said to this same user (not CFA1877) that "Portugal and Spain claim this territory as being theirs De Jure and no ammounts of whining will change that" and "There is a territorial dispute between Portugal and Spain, so those categories are proper. Portugal and Spain have its reasons to claim said territory so "let's get stuck to reality, the not fantasy" that you pretend that this dispute does not exist." Tm (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Olivenza&diff=prev&oldid=847582579 You also forgot (or did not see as this was made about 30 minutes ago) that you also blyndly reverted my changed the Category:Municipalities in Portugal and added Category:Former mmnicipalities in Portugal as i explained that "as the facto there is no portuguese municipality power since 1801, albeit Portugal still claim this municipality as being protuguese De Jure".

Also, in case you do not know, the fact is that there is a low key but activeterritorial dispute, as is it not a coincidence that there are no boundary stones between boundary stones 802 and 899, south of the de facto border south of Badajoz and west of Olivença. And these are facts, not fantasies, as the portuguese Army Geospatial Information Center is one of the organizations of the portuguese state responsible to mark and keep the border marker stones. Tm (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You also said in your talkpage that "Not to mention the (unrealistic) political view you have on this subject. Olivença ceased to be Portuguese territory more than two centuries ago, but you insist on maintaining the status of a Portuguese municipality and making it part of Alentejo." ("Olivença deixou de ser território português há mais de dois séculos, mas faz questão de manter o estatuto de município portugués e de fazerlo parte do Alentejo."). But you are completly wrong, when the simple lack of border markings west of Olivença just proves that there is an territorial dispute about the De Jure status of Olivença. Tm (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tm, I think it's a miracle. A decade of lack of dialogue with other users...have been magically transformed into a flow of words. For that reason alone I think it's worth it. But now, tell me: are you going to change the way you act with other users in this category? Are you going to stop considering yourself the guardian-owner of the category? Are you going to stop monopolizing the category? I would appreciate a cordial response. Thanks in advance. CFA1877 (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just last year this was discussed in my and other users talkpages and in here (as linked above), so claiming that i had "decade of lack of dialogue with other users" is clearly wrong. And since 2007 several other users and administrators have reverted deletions like yours, so that fact alone proves who is what. Tm (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Let me remind you: you have had no dialogue. You have only reminded other users that you are in possession of the absolute truth. In a rather unpleasant way, too. If you had avoided that procedure, we probably wouldn't be here now. CFA1877 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, Tm, it sounds like you're willing to make changes. It seems that we will be able to reach a consensus. Would you mind explaining why there are "controversial" subcategories that you maintain? I would like to know, with a proper explanation. Also on the entrance. CFA1877 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

My explanations are all above, in my talkpage (as linked here), and in the previous discussions in here (as linked above). It were edits like yours that were reverted several other users since and was you that tried to revert edits that were in this category since 2015. Tm (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You claim that a text is redundant but should also know who added the first text about this dispute (hint, it was not me but J.M.Domingo) Tm (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my mistake but it was also not J.M.Domingo who added the first text, but Lopezsuarez. Sorry for the confusion as both are users you called above. Tm (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

So, you have no problem with that. In that case, and with the changes you have already made, I think the issue can be closed. CFA1877 (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

For your information. I moved that text (a sightly compacted version) to the Wikidata item about olivença. Saludos. Tm (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

In good faith i informed you that i moved the deleted text to Wikidata, as it was a npov description, as you claimed it was redundant, as you said above "Then, there is an entry in the category that comes from the time when Wikidata did not exist. I consider that it is not necessary now, since Wikidata exists".

But now, in what i can only describe as an act of bad faith by your part, you started reverting my moves and, not happy in doing it, you are now accusing me of a political agenda as you said that "Wikidata is not a platform for political purposes". Tm (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's a wikidata issue, not a wikimedia commons issue. But before making spurious accusations, I would like to point out that you have used this issue from Commons to break a consensus that you reached with @Lopezsuarez: in Wikidata a few years ago. Stop causing troubles everywhere you can. CFA1877 (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You say that i have "break a consensus that you reached with @Lopezsuarez: in Wikidata a few years ago", yet i, as far as i can see, i never arrived at a consensus with him in anything in wikidata, as i can only find two interactions with Lopezsuarez

1 - This of an related subject but not about the core of this discussion in here

2 - And the fact that i merely reverted his deletion of any reference to the territorial dispute, as not not even the spanish official flag and the coat of arms he would stop from vandalizing by removing them) Tm (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Minorax: since this dispute is also on Wikidata now. Abzeronow (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand now, reading this discussion on your wikidata usertalkpage that you have the habit of using the accusation of "political purposes" on others.

Or are you going to deny that you accused another wikidata user added that the asturian (a regional language in spain) description of "categoría de Wikimedia" to around 500 similar items and you reverted those addictions by making the claim that those addicttions were made for "political purposes"? But you reverting all of them is not an "political purposes" as you justify that with "Empty editions, Wikidata is not a platform for political purposes. Return to the previous stable version"? Understood in that you stand. Tm (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tm, you have no shame. You are spuriously mixing matters unrelated to this cause, just to spread the filth. I'm very kind to the immoral attitude you have. But no matter how much crap you bounce around, it doesn't take away the problems you've had with other users for years related to this issue. CFA1877 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You accused me of having a political agenda and so it is important to mention that you tend make this kind of claims (like you did just yesterday as i pointed in the asturian situation. Tm (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

And now, after i informed him, as i should, of W:Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Report_concerning_user:CFA1877_2 opened by me, he reverted my text with accusations of "Trolling, Wiki-hounding". Tm (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree with the problem that CFA1877 exposes. The user Tm tries to give an unreal image of Olivenza's situation. It is just another municipality in Spain, and the fact that Portugal does not recognize it does not make it a disputed territory. Portugal demands absolutely nothing, and Spain has been Portugal's main partner for a long time. Olivenza's category should adjust to reality. Lopezsuarez (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You claim that "Portugal demands absolutely nothing" yet the border is not marked between the border stone markers 802 and 899, precisely west of Olivença. Also the portuguese state gave the spanish state the reports about the lands that would be flooded by the construction of the Alqueva Dam and named that report "in the spanish state and territory of Olivença". These are facts, not what you say.

You also claim that "Portugal does not recognize it does not make it a disputed territory" is itself contradictory, as the Portugal only land borders are with Spain. Tm (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

And i never arrived at a consensus with you in anything in wikidata, contrary to what is claim. I merely reverted your deletion of any reference to the territorial dispute, as not not even the spanish official flag and the coat of arms you can stop from vandalizing by removing them) Tm (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply