Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 97

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


User:Anonymxx00 again

As with previous report, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive_96#User:Anonymxx00, resulting in 1 week block, user obviously didn't learn from the mistakes, and has continue to upload 4 images (File:Kim Hyun-soo.png, File:Lee Hak-joo.png, File:Park Hyung-sik 211126.png, File:Park Solomon.png) as falsely licensed under CC 3.0. — Paper9oll 10:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done No useful edit, blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Manashvi Upadhyay

Manashvi Upadhyay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent uploading of images with either false claims of being own work, or false licenses. Informed at User talk:Manashvi Upadhyay#You may be blocked soon and User talk:Manashvi Upadhyay#Copyright violations, their response to the latest message was to upload another copyright violation. FDW777 (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyright violation

@Arianahvaz: even by by receive warning [1] still counite uploading file that have copy wright or is not those agencies works like this and those agencies use a those files for their news

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Took me more than an hour to clean up the mess they left behind 😫 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

PoV pushing again

Persistent pushing that Kievan Rus' is actually Russia: see history of renaming File:Historical map of Russia, 1054-1240.gif. Attempts of discussion: 1, 2. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

MichalPL

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Friedrich Franz07

Friedrich Franz07 (talk · contribs)

Nazi-fan NOTHERE. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley:  Comment You haven't informed user about ANI. Per guc.toolforge I think a global lock is appropriate. A09090091 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
No, that's deliberate. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Why?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Indef, for global lock request on Meta. --A.Savin 18:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Also locked. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 20:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Q28

SCP-2000 12:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ deleted. @Q28: Kindly stop creating translation pages with just a single translation unit or cutting and pasting the content over. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Minhvinn

Continously uploads copyvio (with defamative names) after final warning. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 20:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Baijumaev

Baijumaev (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Already second set of copyvios after the last warning. --Xunks (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block, all uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Snthilakammarist

User Snthilakammarist's all contributions are copyvios and re-upload after delete. --~AntanO4task (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. The user is warned, almost all uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The user uploaded another possible copyvio image ~AntanO4task (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Lip-enabolo

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I am not sure in sockpuppetry, because deleted uploads are not very similar. You can create a request for checkuser. I deleted the only upload as copyvio. Taivo (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

user:محمد اصفهانی گره گوزلو

@محمد اصفهانی گره گوزلو: non of this uploads are own works

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done cleaned up and warned. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

[redacted] is apparently a minor uploading pictures of his dick

He’s clearly not here to improve commons and is putting himself at risk of grooming. Please block him for his own good. Dronebogus (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 Half done All files deleted. I think they should be blocked too to "protect" them, but I'm not sure and did NOT block them.
Other admins, please take further appropriate actions, including informing WMF T&S to suppress files, if necessary. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked [redacted] indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

User:217.117.125.83

See this discussion and now this. IP comes from Moscow and tries to let us do political changes here. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I've indefinitely semiprotected the file description page as this disruption is going on since 31 July 2021. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

User is accusing me of copyright violations

User C messier is accusing me of copyright violations and is adamant that I uploaded 3d images to Wikipedia, which is false. I do not own a 3d phone.. Thank you.Tzim78 (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Tzim78, I guess assuming good faith without knowing the official policy COM:ART, uploaded a dozen photos of old 3D objects (and not 3D images, I'm not sure why he understood that was the problem), which I have nominated for deletion because the original sources of the photos didn't have a compatible license and weren't PD-old. Furthermore, Tzim78 claims that he is the creator of the photos (at least in the file summary), however I have spotted them in other sites, where the photos had been uploaded before commons, eg. File:Madonna del Rosario Michaelus Damaschinus.png is claimed to be an own work, but it had been uploaded here in December 2016, five years before the file was uploaded in Commons. --C messier (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Someone is committing copyfraud

N32756377 had claimed that the uploads were his own work even though these were made before he was born. If he would have been a kid if he worked on The Toy Castle. What is even more suspicious is that he created the BKN logo (he would be around 10 or younger if he really made this). No, I am not actually making this up (in one deletion requests, he claimed to have made a 1952 cartoon). SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Not really copyfraud, just a user who doesn't understand how copyright works. I deleted the obvious copyvios, and warned the user. Yann (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Arthemiticoioi

Arthemiticoioi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  The user is only engaged uploading derived works with false license of being in public domain and own work. Run n Fly (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, files copied from FB deleted, all other files tagged. Yann (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Jose05012007

Uploaded several official portraits of Portuguese politicians as own work, used them in the respective articles at pt.wp, replacing properly licensed images. At least one of these was deceitfully doctored to avoid detection, so it might be more than mere cluelessness. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Blocked and deleted Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Alpaca5000

✓ Done. One week block. All uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Katiep23 uploading potential/proven copyvios

@Katiep23 has uploaded multiple photos without permission; one was elsewhere on the internet. A warning is probably in order. I dream of horses (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Alim-we

On Valentine's Day of all days, I received the following wikimail through Commons from Alim-we:

Salam. Once you die, and no one will rule the Wikipedia for you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileLanguages/Five_Pillars_of_Islam

Their grasp of English is quite basic, so I am not sure if this is a threat or another type of message. However, considering my attempts to keep out their copyright-violating/sockpuppeting/proselytising edits, I assume the intention is not on a friendly basis. The fact that this user repeatedly tries to upload a particular pdf (attempt 1, attempt 2, attempt 3), despite a previous deletion request, indicates they have no regard for our copyright and multiple-account policies. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@علاء, Dyolf, and Tarawneh: Maybe you can communicate in Arabic with that user and inform them about our rules and standards. De728631 (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello De728631, per this, the above account is a sock for Hadysylmy (blocked in enwiki and ruwiki). Most of his edits on tkwiki, so maybe his native language is "Turkmen", for example here he used English on arwiki discussion. But I sent to him in his talk page on Arabic, as he wrote here that he can speak Arabic. Best --Alaa :)..! 16:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Alaa. Let's see how this turns out. De728631 (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks everybody, though I am not too optimistic about them speaking Arabic any better than English. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Jamoliddin007: legal threats

Legal threats (in Russian): [2].
Also the same behavior in Russian Wikipedia: [3]. — 2A00:1370:8129:6878:6B7D:C580:E39A:4F21 13:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

They upload copyvios, too.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Jamoliddin007 blocked for 1 day due to legal threat[4]. In his legal-threat-edit he mentioned a "TRAGON.LTD", suggesting he might be editing for a company. --Túrelio (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Hassanjalloh1

Last week I noticed this user had uploaded a Getty Images photo of Virginia Giuffre as their own work, and I flagged it for speedy deletion. Checking their other uploads I found they'd also uploaded a lot of photos from Facebook and the Open Society Foundations charity as CC-Attribution, when none of it seemed to be, so I flagged those for further discussion.

Hassanjalloh1 was unhappy about this and said that they would report me for harassment, and asked me to "stay away from anything that relates to my account while I pursue this case", so I gave them some space to do that, suggesting they make a post here at COM:ANU. A week later they hadn't done anything to progress that, so I went back to checking the copyright status of their uploads: changing some to PD, flagging others as obvious or possible copyvios.

They're now removing some of these speedy deletion templates, saying that me pointing out that their upload is from Getty Images is "harassing" them and that the image should stay. Polite communication was already exhausted on this, so I'll raise the disagreement here myself, if they aren't going to. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC).

Lord Belbury, thanks for bringing this up. I was actually waiting to get more concrete evidence that you're really harassing me according to Commons:Harassment before offically filing the complaint. You harassed me a lot of times, for instance this you posted on my Talk page: "A week ago you asked me to 'stay away' from your uploads while you contacted administrators about our disagreements on licencing, and you said you'd let "other editors" look into it. It looks like you've decided against doing that, so if I don't see any such process being started in the next couple of days I'll take another look at your uploads to check that they've all been licenced correctly." Despite even pleading on you, asking you to stay away from me until our issue is resolved. I posted three times on your Talk page, a notices about you possibly harassing me. You don't know me personally and you never knew how your actions have affected my mental welbeing. You could've easily asked another editor to look into my account but you insisted on harassing and traumatizing me. I told you plainly that "I believed you may not be approaching my account in good faith" and that I wanted you to stay away from me until our issue was resolved one way or another, as there were other editors and users to do whatever you were doing to my account, because you made a lot of, I believe, unnecessary decisions on some of my uploads. You insisted and continued even today. I had to undo your flags because it was going on like spamming my uploads now. Any other editor, I will not do that!
All the images you flagged for copvio, it wasn't even an intended violation as, for instance the Virginia Giuffre and Tiffany Haddish images I got them through Yahoo Image search with CC option in settings, and I provided the links to both. However, if these images happened to show up as copyrighted somewhere, then I can understand that but it wasn't intentional. It's over a week now you've been consistently and persistently checking my uploads over and over, which is consistent with the idea of someone stalking you. And this, to be honest gave me some sort security worries. Even now many of my images you've flagged and you recommended twice a bunch of my uploads, for over a week now for deletion. --Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
You uploaded File:Virginia Giuffre.jpg from https://thetruthrevolution.net/jeffrey-epsteins-fixer-ghislaine-maxwell-arrested-by-fbi/ - but there is no free license at that source. It clearly says (c) at the bottom. You uploaded File:Tejan Kabbah at the Commonwealth.jpg despite https://thecommonwealth.org/ being marked (c) at the bottom of the page. You don't seem to understand how licensing works and LordBelbury (and anyone else) is within their rights to nominate these files for deletion. Also, posting to FB is not the same as granting a free license. Anyone can post to FB but only the person who took the photo can release the photo to commons Gbawden (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the fact that those photos are not copyrighted. I used Yahoo Image Search, with the CC option, to get the source. So somehow I don't know why they were listed as CC. You can verrify this by doing the search yourself. User:Lord Belbury has been persistently targeting me for almost two weeks, which according to Commons:Harassment is completely wrong. No editor is supposed to target an individual editor/user. Funnily my uploads are not even that much. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
You also don't seem to understand what we CC licenses we can host here. We cannot host any Creative Commons marked NC or ND. I urge you to read the table on COM:L to understand this. I know its frustrating - I had similar frustrations when I first started editing but these are our rules. If you persist in uploading non free files due to your misinterpretation of the rules you may be blocked. en:WP:COMPETENCE may be a worthwhile read as well. We are not trying to harass you - we are simply following the rules of Commons Gbawden (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
WOW! I was talking about Lord Belbury harassing me and you respond by saying "we are not harassing you". Who are "we"?? you came down on me and start going after my uploads deleting them all without a reasonable assessment. OK, I give up. My Coomons days might be over now. I was just trying to contribute to society and not being traumatized in the process. PLEASE, DELETE ALL OF THEM. If you like block me indefinitely! I hope other editors see this. Thanks. Adios! Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Creative Commons licences come at several levels. The standard versions "by attribution" or "by attribution share-alike" are totally fine for Commons. However, when there is a "no-derivatives" or "non-commercial" provision, the licence is still Creative Commons but we do not accept them because these licenses do not allow free reuse. De728631 (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
That deletion request was reasonable because the license on the source page was well-hidden, and is not described in the file page. I had previously tagged the file for speedy deletion. Hassanjalloh1's only omission here was failing to review the file history. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
The image had a pending {{License review}} template, which says to read Category:License review needed for more information, which says to read Commons:Where is the license on various sites? to see where licences are displayed. Taking it to a deletion discussion wasted the time of four editors, and it was speedy-closed as "clearly unsubstantiated". --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I honestly never saw what you're talking about. And to think that the coincidence was retaliatory, was actually not. I even mentioned about the file in one of our earlier conversations and you never said anything about it. And when I checked the link, the license was not explicitly stated there, and I never saw it. I believe many won't easily find it as well. Why would I make such a recommendation knowing that the license was there and that someone would find it and this would end up me being accused of retaliatory moves. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
You could have asked where Vimeo hide the licences (we literally have a page about that already). Opening a DR on someone you're already in a dispute with is hardly going to improve matters. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Political POV pushing

I'm sorry to be annoying, but we still have continous attempts to present ancient Rus' as Russia despite having no arguments at all (1, 2). Administrator's help is needed. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the advisability of renaming and the search for consensus on the talk page → ru:ВП:Форум/Архив/Исторический/2022/01#Переименование_файлов_на_Викискладе. The accusation is not constructive, since the final outcome of the discussion has not been summed up.--Semenov.m7 (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
There was a discussion. Two users told you that the correct version is Rus'. You repeatedly revert renaming without serious arguments at all. There is nothing to speak about. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Here we should not forget that I did not roll back the name many times. I just returned the original name of the file I uploaded. Besides, I was the one who opened the discussion about renaming. Do not rush things, let an experienced disinterested participant (preferably an administrator) summarize the discussion.--Semenov.m7 (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Semenov.m7: ru:ВП:Форум/Архив/Исторический/2022/01#Переименование файлов на Викискладе is a discussion on WP ru, I fail to see how it can have any effect on the name of a file in English or any other language which is not Russian.
It is not an issue of en:WP:BUREAUCRACY not being fulfilled by a summary, it is an issue of POV-pusing.--Semenov.m7 (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, I opened the renaming discussion, not you. Veverve (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
You are misleading, I opened the discussion.--Semenov.m7 (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
No. The discussion (although there is nothing to discuss, the case is completely clear) was opened by Veverve. Your openings of discussions in other places are irrelevant here. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 Question Why is the discussion taking place on Wikipedia and not on Commons? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion on Commons. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done I blocked Зайцев Руслан Викторович one week for edit warring on Historical map of Russia, and protected the file for move for 1 year. Ruthven (msg) 09:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Ruthven, thank you, but the name "Historical map of Russia" is not supported by any arguments, the correct translation is "Historical map of Rus'" (noted by all users except Зайцев Руслан Викторович and Semenov.m7: 1, 2). Sneeuwschaap (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Sneeuwschaap OK. Reverting to the Wrong Version. Ruthven (msg) 15:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Sneeuwschaap (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

інф мозок: фото зрізів на загальному 1, 2... все за номерами, назва частки мозку і її номер, функція цієї частки мозку,

Дуже прошу впорядкуйте ! Це складно, зате дуже ефективно для вивчення світом! Дуже дякую — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.225.97.226 (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(machine translation from Ukranian: info brain: photos of slices in total 1, 2 ... all by numbers, the name of the part of the brain and its number, the function of this part of the brain, Please put in order! It is difficult, but very effective for studying the world! Thank you very much) It's not clear exactly what this is reference to, but it does not appear to be a user problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

209.225.97.226, який файл або сторінку Ви маєте на увазі? (What file or page do you speak about)? Sneeuwschaap (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Kai3952

After seeing this extremely odd post at the help desk [5] I took a look at this persons uploads, since they say they have over 2,000 more to upload, if they can stay warm enough. They are uploading hundreds of images of empty roads, piles of bricks, litter, clouds, basically nearly every thing they see every time they leave their apparently very cold house. While these images don't seem to violate policy, I believe that as a whole they violate COM:HOST, specifically the phrase "realistically useful for an educational purpose" in that they are basically shots of random everyday things that are unlikely to ever be used for any educational purpose, and are therefore outside of Commons scope. Rather than start in with mass nominations for deletion, I thought perhaps a discussion with them about their uploads is in order, so they may better understand the scope and purpose of commons and maybe filter what they are uploading a bit better. I'm bringing this directly here after looking at their talk page and block log, it seems this isn't the only time they may have been operating outside of expected norms here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

So you want to block my account?--Kai3952 (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I think I was pretty clear that I want you to consider whether the images you are uploading are really within the scope of this project and are likely to ever be used by others. That is the purpose of Commons, it is not just a place to dump every single photo you take. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
If you're talking about my photos then you shouldn't be reporting me here. I am very displeased by your actions.--Kai3952 (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Are you going to respond to what I actually had to say about your uploads, or are you just going to keep registering your displeasure about it? I think it would be better for everyone if you did the latter former, I'm not interested in making this personal and I don't see it as me-vs-you. I tried to make that clear when opening this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: Did you perhaps mean "former", rather than "latter"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Oops. Good call, fixed. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: Thanks, but you forgot to ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Kai3952, I see some uploads by you that are not in scope, like this photo of ordinary clouds. More significantly, you upload multiple nearly-identical photos of the same subject (example: 1, 2, 3). There is absolutely no need for these duplicate files. Please be more selective when choosing what photos to upload. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If photographing from a different angle or the photographer's foothold has changed, I will choose to keep these photos and choose the appropriate title for them (example: 1, 2, 3). For this photo of ordinary clouds, to me, it will be beneficial and realistically useful for "educational purpose" because it shows that the sky is like "a gap in the forest canopy" and also explained why does the torrential rain suddenly disappear and then suddenly return.--Kai3952 (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Just what is the problem here? Yes, there are many photos. But I for one appreciate them. I'm not in Taiwan, so this is a different culture to mine and I enjoy seeing the differences. Here's a pile of bricks. Yet what an interesting photo (at least to someone in the UK with a background in freight). Bricks that are banded, prepared for movement with a fork-lift truck, yet not placed on a pallet? Consider me educated!
Yes, Kai, please remember COM:SCOPE and the purpose of our efforts here. Photos should be "educational" to some purpose. We also have quality goals, so that such photos are usable. But within that, I'm really not seeing a problem here and certainly not one in scope! This is just some dirt if you don't know any geology, but if you do, it's a photo which potentially becomes a classroom slide as a nice exposure of a small-scale syncline.
If I do have any concerns, it might be that some of these (the syncline) were taken on a camera phone which has decided to use an extremely wide f1.8 aperture, and as a result are not really sharp enough to show the necessary detail. That's an issue, but not at all one of the editor's good faith, as seems to be being questioned here.
So Kai, thankyou for your uploads. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
A pile of bricks is not random everyday things, because they are rich in the brick kiln industries of Huatan, reflecting the quality and technical advancement. This is not dirt and it cause of my bad photographing skills and the light. I've checked the geological information provided by Lee Chun-Sun (a retired professor of the Earth Sciences department at National Taiwan Normal University), so I'm sure it's a syncline. If you have the ability to read Chinese, I am quite happy to provide the evidence with any clarity that Commons has benefited.--Kai3952 (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I think this is part of the problem, you seem to be defending yourself from Andy's comments, when he was actually supporting you. You seem to get extremely defensive at any discussion at all of your contributions and start lashing out without considering the substance of what is being said. And Andy, I don't see where I questioned this users good faith, just their judgement in uploading so many near-identical images. This, for example is a great photograph and I'm glad it was uploaded. This is some clouds. This seems fine, it's the front gate of a local school. This is almost the exact same image again with the camera at a slightly different angle, and this is what is apparently on your left from the same spot. All I'm suggesting is some curation when making uploads, this is Commons, not Google street view. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
From a totally uninvolved user: User:Kai3952 isn't defending himself against Andy's comments and he is surely not extremely defensive. He is just defending himself against User:Beeblebrox, and even quoting Beeblebrox ("random everyday things"). Vysotsky (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: I know that this is Commons, not Google street view...I admit I did it wrong, so what do you want me to do? Did I shut up and watch you speak?--Kai3952 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I really don't get where all this hostility is coming from, I certainly don't recall telling you to shut up, but I'll try again to explain: all I've been asking is that you curate your uploads a little better. It isn't helpful to the project to have a bunch of images that are basically the same, or that don't have a clearly defined subject, or are just some clouds. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Just 8 hours ago, I publicly declared here that I would not upload photos. I fully recognize how inappropriate it was to make those uploads and sincerely apologize to everyone for the inconvenience and concern that I have caused as a result of my less-careful choice of them.--Kai3952 (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how you got "you should stop uploading anything at all" from my comments or anyone else's. I also note you undid that edit anyway. I've tried to be clear about my concern and to be equally clear that I think you do upload valued images that do benefit the project, but apparently you just feel attacked no matter what so I guess I give up. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
You.--Kai3952 (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

User bludgeoning debate with anti-gay rhetoric after repeatedly being asked to stop

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:The user against the promotion, justification and propagation homosexuality.jpg User:Yuri V. has been making inappropriate homophobic remarks such as “Several times I heard someone was clinging to the handsome young man (no-gay): "It is normal. It's okay. It's very nice. Try it. You will be very pleased." There are known cases of rough violence. Are you for or against LGBT violence, propagation, agression?” And “This file is agaist aggressive LGBT-propagation, against of discrimination of non-LGBT.” Some of the other delete voters (namely User:A1 and known problematic user User:Zezen) have been making similar problematic remarks as well. Is any action necessary against one or more? Dronebogus (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

 Comment I closed this DR, which should have been done long ago. Yann (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yahoot7

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Also claimed to be retired, but continue to edit. Yann (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Rohnjones

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for vandalism. --Didym (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Didym: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

user:Lolatmylilpeepee not here to build an encyclopedic collection

The name makes it blatantly obvious. COM:PORN COM:PENIS violation and troll. Dronebogus (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef Gbawden (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Gbawden i feel like User:Lolatmylilpeepee is innocent because the user said he is new and is trying to learn about commons Yahoot7 (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
No he isn’t. Commons is not an amateur porn site and you’re expected to have a degree of decorum. Dronebogus (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Good block. The username itself would have been reason for a block. De728631 (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree with Yahoot7, even if deletion requests were warranted, the indefinate block was not. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 15:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Wait what do you mean "even if deletion requests were warranted, the indefinate block was not." Gone Postal? Yahoot7 (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
To me it reads "The files must be deleted for sure, but the user doesn't need to be indeffed". NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 17:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
okay thanks NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh Yahoot7 (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I felt that the user was trolling and generally not here to contribute to the project. The user concerned can request an unblock which will be reviewed by an independent admin. Not sure what an unblock will achieve if the user continues to troll Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Ken190

Ken190 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Lukecody

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

Hello there. User Lukecody has requested unblock and after my comment on their talk page has gone on a series of personal attacks, misusing their talk page, which as a blocked user is only to be used to request unblock. --Bedivere (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Elcobbola is the admin who blocked this user. Yann (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Technically EugeneZelenko was the blocking admin; I merely updated the rationale and duration when Lukecody was caught socking to evade that block. Not sure why I'm needed here, as this is a concern about Lukecody's conduct on his talk page, not the block itself. Эlcobbola talk 20:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I declined previous unblock request. Let somebody else deal with this request. Taivo (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Mass destructive uploads

Volleybrawl (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , same as Yohgui (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  mass uploads of duplicates of country flags as 'own works', despite numerous warnings. --Xunks (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked Yohgui indef., as probable sock, warned Volleybrawl, and deleted some files. Yann (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Wink TV Europe

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Hammersoft, Andy Dingley, Yann as parties to the original discussion.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

As before, delete and block. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • This is all quite frustrating. We've had an opportunity before to do something about this. This is blatant copyright abuse. Yet, nothing is done about it. I realize that Commons is a failed project, with a backlog of deletion requests now standing at 6 months old. Our ability to police routine problematic images is frankly absurd. That we're incapable of swiftly dealing with blatant copyright abuse by an unrepentant editor who has been at this now, unchecked, for four months isn't simply absurd. It's a damning testimony to the utter failure of this project. Honestly, I don't see what point there is in reporting problematic editors anymore. It's also almost at the point where it is useless to nominate anything for deletion. I'm not blaming anyone, least of all administrators. However, we as a community are burdened with either coming up with a means to resurrect this project from the dead, or to close it down. I realize closing it down seems impossible. Yet, with copyright violations being so rampant, and this community's inability to do anything much about it, I fail to see any other option barring a massive effort to reimagine how this project has to be run going into the future. The halcyon days of this project are 10 years in the past. It's time we woke up to this reality and did something about it. Frankly, I don't care what happens to this particular editor anymore. They're just a tiny little symptom of the massive, insipid disease plaguing this project. Blocking them and deleting all their uploads is the least thing of concern. What little horsepower is left on this project needs to be focused, razor sharp, on how to put life back into what unburned remnants remain of this once great, lofty ideal. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done I have re-blocked indef for the copyvio and user name - if they do represent Wink TV Europe they must confirm via OTRS Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Gbawden: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Jacksuck is clearly not interested in building an encyclopedic media repository

I mean… his latest upload is this. What more do you need, besides the piles (pun not intended) of deletion notices and warnings on his talk page? Dronebogus (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Just a side note, Commons is an educational media repository. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 07:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. I deleted the photo speedily as copyright violation. Userpage is nominated for deletion. Also I'll block Kikijaco (talk · contribs) as sockpuppet of Jacksuck. Taivo (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Actually, it is vice versa. Kikijaco was created in 2009 and is a sockmaster, Jacksuck was created in 2014. Taivo (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Jpfsf2007

Copyvios of portuguese politicians’ press photos. Looks like the same as this. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Blocked and deleted --Ruthven (msg) 12:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Diana Tere

Uploaded what seems to be candid classroom shots, some of them doctored to show exagerated flushing and tear streaking. Bad photographic quality, and trollish descriptions and categorization, adding to concerns about copyright, scope, and minors’ privacy and safety — both online and in meatspace. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done You could have warned them yourselves Tuvalkin Gbawden (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Indeed I could, and should, have. It slipped my mind. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

(Yet again) abuse from admins

Why does it become acceptable to belittle other editors here, so long as it's being done by an admin? It helps too if it's done in German, to non-German speakers, in the hope they won't notice it. Claiming "I set a big importance on a friendly conversational tone." always makes a landgrab for the moral high-ground too, even when their own edits are anything but. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Sodium silicate minerals Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Bi94034

Please can somebody control this user and his edits ? I don't know if he's a vandal or just a novice user. But his edits are meaningless when not harmful. And even the files he uploads are of no interest, like the image of him uploaded several times. Thank you. DenghiùComm (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. The user is warned, all uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much ! DenghiùComm (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Users Vinsmoke66 and Shreejank

I have a problem with Vinsmoke66 (talk · contribs) and Shreejank (talk · contribs) (they are the same person, see for instance Special:Diff/628688338)

These users want to upload new versions of images that are already used in Wikis. Instead of uploading new files, as demanded (Special:Diff/628565210, Special:Diff/633613127, Special:Diff/633374056), they continue to overwrite existing files with a different version. They even removed the attribution to the author (examples: Special:Diff/633382364 or Special:Diff/631516787).

Thanks for you help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Petit Chat (talk • contribs) 09:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

@Le Petit Chat: Just a side note, you can undo multiple edits at once when viewing the diff between them. For example, clicking (undo) at Special:Diff/633408067/633408235 leads you to a submit interface where one click reverts them all. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 09:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I blocked Vinsmoke66 for abusing multiple accounts, and deleted most files as copyvios. Yann (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks.
There is also Incarnate02 (talk · contribs) who is probably the same person. Le Petit Chat (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC) (and Lahure66 (talk · contribs)--Le Petit Chat (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC))
✓ Done Both blocked. Yann (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Arthemiticoioi

The user has been warned several times not upload copyright images, but does not listen to the warnings neither from editors nor from admins. They keep on uploading images with a disguised sources field in images like Wikipedia, Public Domain etc. All images are copyright violations and must be removed immediately as well as the user must be blocked indef. Thanks Run n Fly (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done First block, so one week. All copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Văn Trung Hoàng Anh

Uploads copyvio file after first block expiration. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 03:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 1 month. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Alexandrarosalinda

Proposed for deletion of uploaded file as self promotion but the SD|G10 removal tag has been reverted twice by the user. See File:HM333XO - Self Portrait by HM333XO.jpg. Another identical file is here: File:HM333XO Official Artist Photo.jpg. The very few contributions the user has made are related to the same subject and seem to be self-promotion/advertisement. The warning from the user's talk page was also removed (see user's talk page history - User talk:Alexandrarosalinda). The same self-promotion/advertisement subject information can also be found on Wikidata - Q109667484. Luanlou (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked as spam. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

copy right violation by Alibakhshkh

@Alibakhshkh: all of files upoloaded by Alibakhshkh are copy right viloation. non of them are user own work all take from google image even one of these files added in wikidata [6]

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I warned the user. If he continues with copyvios, then he should be blocked. Taivo (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The controversial photos

It seems that the controversial photos were created and uploaded with several Sockpuppet accounts, so please investigate whether or not Sockpuppet accounts were used .

Concerning the Evidences, these are what the controversial photos have in common : 1) All photos were taken with iPhone 6s and edited with Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) software. 2) However, it is all in the same category below, 3) In addition, since Cyberdoomslayer has disclosed what IP address the user uses, Let me provide you with it after getting your advice or opinion for the potential allegation above whether I can write the IP address in this space. (including Cyberdoomslayer’s Proxy IP addresses in the university - Regarding Cyberdoomslayer's previous self-introduction, I would like to get advice from Administrator in commons whether it is okay to record the name of the university that I've learned through a self-introduction by the specific user above. )

Location of the photos: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Demonstrations_and_protests_against_Moon_Jae-in > it all political photos against current Korean President Moon Jae-in : i,e, the current President Moon Jae-in's real face photo was maliciously deformed and placed in the Anti-Moon Jae-in poster, (note: I'm also wondering whether it's allowed to the Wikimedia commons. )

user: Cyberdoomslayer(2 photos) [1], [2] - main account and three potential Sockpuppet accounts-, user:Sphinx222(2 photos) [3], [4], user:Esp8789(1 photo) [5], Contribution by Cyberdoomslayer:[6] , user: Moonlightpimp(2 photos)[7],[8]
FYI, 1) there was a controversy (that several users are arguing over them) in Korean Wikipedia. However, the issues were not managed properly concerning other factors
2) From my understanding, as per the biased activities of some Korean Administrators, I've requested a review of these issues via English.

i,e) multiple unfair and discriminatory treatments by the Korean admins to the users. - overlooked the the obvious faults of the some users who are apposite the current Government but, block other users with vague Circumstantial guess. 3) As it is more serious problematic thing that the user's other malicious behaviours in Korean Wikipedia spaces, but user:Cyberdoomslayer was generally protected by Korean admins, I have kindly requested to review the Sockpuppet accounts in English page. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Protester_criticizing_Druking_and_calling_for_Moon_Jae-in%27s_impeachment.jpg
  2. ↑ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Protest_against_Moon_Jae-in_in_Seoul_(Aug_15,_2018).jpg
  3. ↑ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Protesters_criticizing_Moon_Jae-in_at_Gwanghwamun_Plaza.jpg
  4. ↑ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:South_Korea%27s_small_business_owners_protesting_against_Moon_Jae-in.jpg
  5. ↑ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Protest_banner_in_South_Korea_calling_for_countermeasures_against_particulate_air_pollution_from_China.jpg
  6. ↑ ':https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Protest_banner_in_South_Korea_calling_for_countermeasures_against_particulate_air_pollution_from_China.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=298301471
  7. ↑ 1)https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anti-Moon_protester_at_the_public_opinion_manipulation_paper_company.jpg
  8. ↑ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DPK_members%27_paper_company_for_public_opinion_manipulation.jpg
Goodtiming8871 Can you cut all the wordiness and get to the problem here? It sounds like a baseless accusation of sockpuppetry and a weird complaint that an anti-politician poster includes the politician's face on it which no one will care about. These were uploaded years ago and images are being used on numerous wikis, including on Korean Wikipedia. I see that there were attempts to delete these images because people don't like that people protested which is not a reason to get rid of them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @Cyberdoomslayer, Sphinx222, Esp8789, and Moonlightpimp: as you are all accused here. And that "protected by Korean admins" comment line makes me think you are just here to be petty but I'll defer to administrators on it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Ricky81682, Thank you for your feedback, The reason of my inquiry to Administrators, 1)  Please advise me whether the administrator could verify the source ip address from the users above. (i,e, Proxy IP addresses), 2) From what I understand, although there were accusation of Sockpuppet accounts in Korean Wikipedia as per the Circumstantial evidence above , it was overlooked by the Korean administrator. 3) Concerning "protected by Korean admins : - it's unfair treatments to the users:  i,e,) Concerning clear circumstantial evidence or , obvious violation the rules of wikipedia, it was generally disregarded if it happens to User:Cyberdoomslayer, however other users were blocked although it was quite vague circumstantial evidence. For all I know, there is no super admin for other languages on Wikipedia. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
The above sockpuppetry accusation raised by Goodtiming8871 is only based on minor similarities, which is totally groundless. Please note that this user had been blocked for about a year at Korean Wikipedia due to his/her numerous politically biased edits and false accusations against other users.[7]
Also, this user argues that the above-mentioned photos factually showing political protesters and their criticism are improper solely due to their content of criticism against the political figure whom he/she supports. But a deletion attempt with similar arguments was already rejected in the past. Please refer to the pages below:
In the discussion, there was unanimous consent of many users that attempting to delete factual images of protests and criticism solely because of their controversial nature would be deemed improper censorship. The above claim is absurd and should be ignored. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the User:Cyberdoomslayer|Cyberdoomslayer, he/she was blocked for two weeks in Korean Wikipedia due to his/her numerous politically biased edits however, I was initially blocked 6 months although User:Cyberdoomslayer|Cyberdoomslayer has a lot more clear violations of Wikipedia policies. The biased Korean administrators additionally blocked my account because I asked reviewing my block period via administrators notice board via my officially reported account. Regarding two weeks and six months blocked period above, it's initiated by the User:Cyberdoomslayer and his support of privatisation of Wikipedia document. Even User:Cyberdoomslayer, blamed the Korean administrators during his/her two weeks blocked period as he/she was blocked but the Korean Administrators didn't do any activity.

  • Regarding the biased administrative actions of Korean administrators, I have asked advice via the tea house of English Wikipedia.
  • As User:Cyberdoomslayer's IP address and proxy IP address are recorded in Korean Wikipedia, I am willing to provide English Wikipedia administrators with it if it's acceptable.
  • From what I gather, If the IP address including proxy IP addresses of the four user accounts are matched, it would be clearly enough evidences of sockpuppetry accusation.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
That short-period block you mentioned was made, because the Korean Wikipedia administrators tried to cool down the argument at the time in which I defended myself against your false accusations, not due to my article edits. But you had been blocked consecutively at Korean Wikipedia for about a year due to your politically biased edits and wrongful use of other accounts as referenced above. I don't want to argue anymore about your complete nonsense and will not respond beyond this, because your current argument is again repeating mere accusations and improper attacks without any reasonable grounds. The administrators here will immediately find that your absurd claim has no merits. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
@Goodtiming8871 and Cyberdoomslayer: Please do not import problems from other wikis, we have enough of our own. RFCs can be started on Meta.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Jeff G., Hello u:Cyberdoomslayer, PLEASE don't try to mislead the English administrators. The blocked period of my account was initially about 6 months(Not a year), however, the biased Korean administrators extended the blocked period, when I left a review inquiry of block period and some of IP users messaged on my talk page about the issues of the unfair treatments to the users by some of Korean administrators. - the Korean administrators assumed the IP users were Sockpuppet of my account without any evidence. In my view, u:Cyberdoomslayer, he or she can not modify the meta data of Wikipedia. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Orizan

The user intentionally did something to make herself worse off because the evidence shows that he abused an extremely large quantity of the "Politicians of Taiwan" category.

Extended content
  1. 594228801
  2. 594228843
  3. 594228174
  4. 594228841
  5. 594228838
  6. 594228840
  7. 594228837
  8. 594228836
  9. 594228839
  10. 594228835
  11. 594228834
  12. 594228832
  13. 594228831
  14. 594228829
  15. 594228830
  16. 594228828
  17. 594228827
  18. 594228823
  19. 594228824
  20. 475180175
  21. 520817128
  22. 594228819
  23. 594228818
  24. 594228820
  25. 594228814
  26. 594228817
  27. 594228812
  28. 594228811
  29. 594228810
  30. 594228808
  31. 594228803
  32. 594228804
  33. 594228805
  34. 594228806
  35. 594228809
  36. 594228802
  37. 594228800
  38. 594228799
  39. 594228798
  40. 594228793
  41. 594228794
  42. 594228787
  43. 594228786
  44. 594228779
  45. 594228776
  46. 594228775
  47. 594228771
  48. 594228769
  49. 594228772
  50. 594228768
  51. 594228761
  52. 594228758
  53. 594228666
  54. 594228667
  55. 594228662
  56. 594228661
  57. 594228658
  58. 594228659
  59. 594228656
  60. 594228653
  61. 594228650
  62. 594228639
  63. 594228627
  64. 594228623
  65. 594228622
  66. 594228597
  67. 594228605
  68. 594228606
  69. 594228594
  70. 594228603
  71. 594228527
  72. 594228528
  73. 594228523
  74. 594228513
  75. 594228508
  76. 594228484
  77. 594228483
  78. 594228492
  79. 594228494
  80. 594228392
  81. 594228397
  82. 594228419
  83. 594228377
  84. 594228384
  85. 594228373
  86. 594228376
  87. 594228371
  88. 594228370
  89. 594228368
  90. 594228364
  91. 594228338
  92. 594228339
  93. 594228365
  94. 594228343
  95. 594228344
  96. 594228342
  97. 594228341
  98. 594228346
  99. 594228345
  100. 594228352
  101. 594228351
  102. 594228334
  103. 594228304
  104. 594228303
  105. 594228245
  106. 594228258
  107. 594228255
  108. 594228249
  109. 594228250
  110. 594228251
  111. 594228236
  112. 594228242
  113. 594228237
  114. 594228238
  115. 594228248
  116. 594228243
  117. 594228244
  118. 594228253
  119. 594228254
  120. 594228246
  121. 594228235
  122. 594228222
  123. 594228221
  124. 594228216
  125. 594228193
  126. 594228199
  127. 594228212
  128. 594228181
  129. 594228184
  130. 594228182
  131. 594228180
  132. 594228192
  133. 594228179
  134. 594228186
  135. 594228188
  136. 594228173
  137. 594228168
  138. 594228176
  139. 594228163
  140. 594228161
  141. 594228348
  142. 594228349
  143. 594228429
  144. 594228427
  145. 594228435
  146. 594228497
  147. 594228499
  148. 594228500
  149. 594228529
  150. 594228511
  151. 594228595
  152. 594228596
  153. 612017652
  154. 594228789

--Kai3952 (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Since no admin seems willing to tell him that his behavior should be modified, I had to spend my time to go clean up his mess. Hopefully this mass "vandalism" will not happen again in the future.--Kai3952 (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually this noticeboard is for urgent cases of obvious vandalism and for reporting users that are unwilling to change their problematic editing and upload behaviour. You, however, brought this case immediately here without trying to discuss it with Orizan first as far as I can see. Not to mention the rather cryptic report with loads of diffs where the rest of us was left to guess what it all was about. I have to say, I'm not very surprised your report here did not gain any traction. De728631 (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Again Flickr spam

Category:Files uploaded by Curlyrnd - Please take a look at this. Yesterday I moved the files that were here to the correct category, but today the wrong category is full again. It's not just about making the misnamed category go away. All the images are not categorized in a meaningful and user-friendly way. Many are also redundant. --Xocolatl (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

extremely fast jump from asking on my talk page to requesting admin intervention. I've fixed them all. Curlyrnd (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Not all. See open DR notified on your talk page. Please make sure to upload only files with a reaslistic educational value. — Racconish 💬 21:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • If I were looking for such a picture...
    If I were looking for such a picture...

... I would not search in the categories Category:2017 in Washington D.C., Category:Sonny Perdue in 2017 or Category:Lawrence MacAulay. And this is no exception. The files are not properly named, properly described, or properly classified. --Xocolatl (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked them for 3 months, as they are uploading obvious copyvios too ("Dongyi Zhuyan All rights reserved", etc.), unacceptable. Regards --A.Savin 13:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The categories are good in themselves, as they relate, for example, to a specific visit by a politician in 2017 to a specific place. The only thing that can be improved is to put these categories in a category related to a given visit, shown e.g. in the Flickr album https://www.flickr.com/photos/usdagov/albums/72157682228238782
Rather, it should not be the sole cause of the blockage (only reasons: copyvios). Matlin (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. Curlyrnd requested unblock and I decided to grant unblock. Mainly due to technical problem: Curlyrnd was not uploading copyvios AFTER warnings. Let him have enough rope. Taivo (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
And I didn't originally report him for copyright infringement, but because his bulk uploads without any meaningful categorization etc. are nonsense. Do you think anything will change about that? And do you think he'll fix the mess he already left? --Xocolatl (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC) He filled Category:March 2020 in Galicia (Spain) with 1149 files without bothering to ensure that the images can also be found in a content search. For example. --Xocolatl (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I assume good faith. Curlyrnd promised to clean own mess. One more copyvio or continuing uploading blurry photos can result a block. Taivo (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Locum-kom

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. No activity after you warned the user. All contributions are deleted. At moment that's enough. Taivo (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Block request

Hi, Could an admin block Ahmtylcn who's made the exact same vandal edit as an IP[8][9] which also got reverted, Clearly NOTHERE to contribute to Commons, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done cross-wiki issues as well. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks Minorax your help is greatly appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Shreejank and Engagevoluntaire18

User Shreejank (talk · contribs), who also uses the sockpuppet Engagevoluntaire18 (talk · contribs), is still overwriting existing files with images from unknown sources (for instance File:1reg.JPG). He has been already warned not to do so (I reported him on 1 March).

Thanks for you help.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

See also this removal of a deletion request (Special:Diff/635587167) while he had also been warned not to do so (User talk:Vinsmoke66#Please do not remove deletion requests). Le Petit Chat (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
✓ Blocked - FitIndia Talk ✉ 15:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

POV edit warring

user:Comrade-yutyo

See file history of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_totalitarian_leaders.jpg

The user has not provided any good sources for their changes and is starting fights over at w:totalitarianism over this as well. Dronebogus (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The user also submitted a false report concerning their edit warring (rather than some problem with our abuse filters) in this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I have provided sources yet they are called "biased", while literally Hayekian capitalists' ideas on totalitarianism are put as reliable. I am not accepting this. Remove the entire photo which is naturally biased anyway or accept right-wing capitalist totalitarianism of Pinochet who is responsible for an awful regime. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The user did not notify the subject of the following subsection via user talk page as required above.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the file history, Dronebogus tried to revert back to a version that was bring the file back where it was originally, which was inline with COM:OVERWRITE, since it was User:Comrade-yutyo overwrote it with their preferred version. The file should be reverted back and protected, Comrade-yutyo should upload the file under a new title. Wikipedia issues should be dealt with there, not here. Bidgee (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

user:Dronebogus

This user, while discussion was not over yet, had reverted the addition of Pinochet in the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_totalitarian_leaders.jpg to clearly commit whitewashing. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The user deleted this subsection when it was a section, and did not notify the subject of the previous section via user talk page as required above.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: , why did you blank this very thread? Please don’t do that, leave it for Admins. Bidgee (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I added some subsection verbiage to my writings above. Why can't we have all the authoritarian figureheads represented? If we want to limit representation, how many people must they have killed or denied fundamental human rights?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
It’s a question of reliable sourcing. Franco and Pinochet are not described as “totalitarian” in any sources provided so far Dronebogus (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Donat_Zubovych

A lot of users contribution seems to be copyright violation taken from internet.--Renvoy (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user and I encourage everybody to nominate all his copyvios for deletion. Taivo (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

IP disruption at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg

A non-static IP user is making disruptive edits at the file description. Cannot message the users since their IP changes after each edit. Can you semi-protect the file please, thanks. Viewsridge (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. IP blocked für 1 day. File semi-protected for 1 week. --Túrelio (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Time to appeal

The topic ban of nominating files for deletion applied by User:De728631 stated that I can appeal for the ban after six months, the time has come. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

For the record, this community-induced TBAN has also been discussed at User talk:A1Cafel/Archive 8#Editing restrictions. De728631 (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@A1Cafel Was that it? Most appeals have a rationale. Timtrent (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
The topic ban set by De728631 stated that you may appeal this topic ban in six months from now by starting a discussion at COM:ANU where community consensus is required to lift your restrictions.--A1Cafel (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Why would we support to lift your restrictions, do you have any reason? It looks like an immature appeal, IMO. It should atleast address why should the restrictions be lifted (taking other things such as why were the restrictions imposed and what have you done to avoid the behaviour which lead to the imposition of restrictions, aside) --Magogre (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Timtrent and Hulged: I was imposed a topic ban due to misuse of speedy deletion. I have learnt and promised not to nominate files for speedy deletion even they had FOP issues (because a discussion is required to see if it can be solved or not). Also, I will not nominate files for speedy deletion if it is not an obvious copyvio (e.g. image found on the source with smaller resolution despite it was first published outside Commons). A DR should be opened to allow discussion. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
According to this discussion and the language above, the restriction was broader than speedy deletion. The first restriction was that you would "neither nominate pages for a deletion discussion nor tag any page for speedy or delayed deletion." Did you limit yourself to only speedy deletion nominations and if so, will I find example of other deletion discussions that I hope were positive interactions at least in the last few months? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: I also refrain from creating DRs. But after clarifying with the admin, I was allowed to give comments on current DRS and make categorization. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
@De728631: Can I apply the rights that was previously revoked? --A1Cafel (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@A1Cafel: Do you see any consensus by uninvolved users that your topic ban should be lifted in parts or in total? I don't. In fact the discussion didnt't even start properly. So, you don't have to ask me to reinstate your previous editing privileges, but the community of Commons users. That's how it works. De728631 (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Genuine question - Is this "appeal" a joke?, I don't see any form of rationale that explains what they've learnt from their mistake or what they do differently now . I also don't see any background information included here by the user that explains why such a restriction was placed in the first place (I for one cannot remember every single !vote I make or every single discussion we have here).
The only thing I do see here is immaturity and that no lessons have seemingly been learnt (If they had I'm sure the user would've made an effort above). In short I see no valid reason as to why the restriction should ever be lifted in 6 months or well ever really. Everybody makes mistakes = It's how you learn from them that defines you –Davey2010Talk 15:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: I have been totally blocked from the deletion process, just get unban on participating DRs two months ago (after communicating with the banning admin). You can just simply look at the DR that I participated recently, IMO this is so called the evidence or the efforts that I have made.--A1Cafel (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate that and one could ask "How can I show evidence of something I'm banned from?" in which case there's more to Commons then just DRs, I'm not going to spoon feed you the answers but there's means and ways to properly get unbanned or unrestricted from things. –Davey2010Talk 21:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Then I think I already done something to show I have changed, Apart from participating DRs, I have done categorizing, updating license from PDMark-owner to other valid PD license, etc. You can look at my contribution as reference. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Flickr spam

RESOLVED:

Matlin has been blocked for three months and his F2C access was removed. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Matlin uploads hundreds of Flickr images without paying attention to their quality and without properly categorizing them. For example, look at Category:Prague. The problem is not new. --Xocolatl (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Their talk page archives are a long list of deletion notifications. Unless there is a compelling case otherwise, I will remove flickr2commons access. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
So you can't do it earlier? Other admins can't do it earlier? If only so, i could be able to clean up my files for month. It's hilarious... Matlin (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
And deletion notifications aren't reason to do anything. For example (sorry, I have to give examples...) Magnus Manske's bot have a lot of them, Fae too. It is reason to block this users? Nope. Matlin (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Behavior of the applicant is aggressive and akin to "harassment". This user was doing spam-edits, blindly selecting all my files and adding my personal category to them for checking (Photos uploaded from Flickr by Matlin (needing check) - it's semi personal category, from which you can remove checked files, but not add them again ), even if the file was a crop from the Masovian Digital Library (see https: // commons. wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Xocolatl&offset=20220105210511&limit=5000&target=Xocolatl). It is worth noting that the User:Krok6kola user has a similar behavior, similar edits.
Also, recent file deletion requests are reckless, devoid of rational justification, and even no justification (e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Witra%C5%BC_w_Sanktuarium_(5699564528).jpg). Reports are added right after uploading the file, as if this user has been stalking me.
Currently, the files that I upload are not suitable for the speedy deletion, there may be minor exceptions. This does not justify a blockage.
For now, I will not supplement my statement with threads regarding files previously uploaded (2021). Back then, I had different views. There is no time for this yet, and if it were, it might be pointless anyway.
The previous block, most likely initiated by the same user, was invalid (no right justification) and the administrator who imposed it should get a warning. I sent the administrator who did this an e-mail (EOT-clause), but I don't have a copy of it. Perhaps he has it. Matlin (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Xocolatl: Let's set aside any talk of blocking for the moment. I'd like you to address Matlin and gently outline what you would like them to do differently. Then we can discuss and hopefully you can come to a mutual agreement. Guanaco (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Guanaco, i asked him a few weeks ago to categorize his images. I won't do that again. And the other problems even aren't new. --Xocolatl (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I think some action has to be taken. We have been quick to take users like A1Cafel to task but Matlin just continues uploading without checking. A number of people have raised this- they need to be more careful when uploading from Flickr. Time to do something about it Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
All users are responsible for three things with their uploads: making sure they are acceptable quality and in scope; making sure they are not copyvios or duplicates; and adding accurate and useful filenames, descriptions, and categories. This is doubly important for mass uploads – one error or insufficiently curated file is easy for someone else to clean up, but one thousand is a real headache. Access to powerful tools like F2C is a privilege, not a right, and it is a privilege that must be taken away from those who misuse it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support F2C removal - The Prague category is now filed with almost identical images all thanks to this user. Credit where credits due they have been categorising their images but yeah they've now created a whole new issue whilst resolving the previous issue they caused. I no longer hold any confidence in this user and their mass-uploading/categorising.
I echo Pi's sentiments - F2C is a privilege not a right. –Davey2010Talk 22:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Matlin doesn't categorize properly. Who will clean up Category:Ski jumping in Poland? Or Category:Events in Spodek? Or... --79.249.19.125 22:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
This IP user is propably Xocolatl (both are removing Profile/Profiles category recently). Matlin (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that was me, I wasn't at home and therefore not logged in. --Xocolatl (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Guanaco: It is not possible to have any kind of discussion with Matlin, except perhaps if you speak Polish. The category Category:Uploads by Matlin/temp was created November 24, 2021‎ by users to put files uploaded by Matlin to delete, saying Matlin was addicted to the "Flicker hose". Those users did manage to delete long lists of files. They have now just given up, as I have. After his last block for a month, Matlin has done slightly better in terms of attempting to categorize. In the past Matlin put many files in Category: Unidentified people. Krok6kola (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support F2C removal per above. Bulk uploading from Flickr can be useful when there are many related photos of some in-scope event or subject, but should not be used indiscriminately to dump anything with a free license tag. Kudos to Matlin for enthusiasm, but despite previous discussion they continue to make a mess relying in no small part for other users to clean up, in categorizations or mass deletions. I urge Matlin to take responsibility for what they upload - please determine if something seems of in-scope usefulness before uploading it, rather than uploading everything and clogging deletion requests later, and paying more attention to appropriate categorizations, thank you. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: See Category:Uploads by Matlin. He has uploaded 334,472 images, 94,453 still needing to be checked although Matlin checks many of his files himself. I do not know if this is in the range of "normal" for the Commons or not. Krok6kola (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support F2C removal. Recurring problem, see here. — Racconish 💬 23:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Three particularly troubling edits by Matlin crossed my watchlist this week, prompting further investigation:

All three edits also removed Category:Photos uploaded from Flickr by Matlin (needing check). This is unacceptable: adding a single overly-broad category, without verifying that the category is accurate (much less specific), and without adding a useful description or filename, does not constitute even a basic level of curation. From their past few days of contributions, it is clear that they are making these poor-quality edits en masse. Based on these actions and comments in this thread, I have removed F2C access and blocked Matlin for three months. (While this is a long block, I feel it is a reasonable escalation based on multiple past blocks and ongoing disruption.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Thanks. Now he is abusing Talk Page Access and making a personal attack.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Just some bluster - nothing worth revoking TPA access at this point. If Matlin files an unblock request, an uninvolved admin can review it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: Sadly, I had to disengage with Special:Mute/Matlin.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flogging the Iberian horse

Yet more edit-warring by Finoskov (talk · contribs) as to whether it's Iberian horse or Iberian horses. Issue is "dead and closed" some time back, per @Montanabw: , so this is just trying to edit-war and hope no-one notices. See CfD and COM:AN/U. @Tm: Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving Iberian horses as a redirect to Iberian horse, then protecting it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Just two more cents, if i´am not mistaken, Category:Iberian horses was deleted by Montanabw, after the closure of CfD and COM:AN/U, but recreated by Finoskov. I could be wrong, or it could be merely a redirect that was made. Tm (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
MontanaBW tagged it for speedy deletion and suggested salting it too, but this was reverted by Finoskov a few hours later. Personally I'd favour a redirect as the best solution. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Category:Iberian horses protected indef and former revisions undeleted. Categories are made for to ease the search for information. Whether A redirects to B or vice versa is merely a minor cosmetical problem. --Achim55 (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

HSLC Assam Is

The user is only engaged uploading derived/copyright works with false license of being in public domain and own work. Run n Fly (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. The user is warned and I deleted all his/her uploads as copyvios. At moment that's enough. Taivo (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

copyright violation by user:Moh3nmb

non of these uploads are user own works all taken from google image.[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user and mass deleted all his/her uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

User adding non-free content from video game

Copied from Commons:Village pump/Copyright as I got no response there.

OkinaMatara (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) is uploading photos of Touhou Project characters and the creator of the series to Commons.

Thing is, fan content of the game is generally under a free license (see guidelines here). There are Touhou fanart images such as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marisa_get_out.png but I don't know about ripping stuff from the games compared to fanart. Wizzito (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, pictures of the creator aren't really allowed w/o his permission (see rule "Though not relevant to Fan Content, posting or modifying photos of ZUN himself without ZUN's permission is prohibited." on the guidelines page) Wizzito (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. I warned the user and deleted all his/her uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Nikon1803

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. Now Nikon is blocked third time, always due to different reason: vandalism, edit warring and now copyvios. I closed one DR and nominated one more copyvio for deletion. Taivo (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 Comment I declined the unblocking request. Yann (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Конунг

Конунг: POV guided edit-wars and violations of Commons:Overwriting existing files concerning the currently highly controversial files File:ORDO in Ukraine.svg, File:Location of Donetsk People's Republic.png and File:Lugansk People's Republic in Ukraine (de-facto) (semi-secession).svg. Two messages on his user discussion page from Yann and me were not successful. -- Chaddy (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

User contributions for Baxwell

El usuario ha confundido Commons con algun foro de nudismo o porno. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 186.172.175.8 (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Boring penis pictures, for what it's worth. Probably out of scope. - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. I warned Baxwell and deleted all his uploads. Taivo (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Username man 998

Clear vandalism account, another user using a burner account to carry out a grudge, cf. [10].--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Nikon1803

Dear Administrator, I want to report this user (Nikon1803) because he has sending a threatening message to me, because i reverted this file and this file to the original version (with clear explanation for it). But this user refuse to understand and give disrespectful attitute toward me. I don't want this become an edit war to be honest, and i hope administrator can take appropriate action for this. Thank you. Tiktomoro (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't do that for me, i replaced the SinemArt and SinemArt Pictures logo with a better one. I didn't do anything, I swear. --NIKO • (wanna talk to me?) 23:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
please admin, just report that user (Tiktomoro) instead. --NIKO • (wanna talk to me?) 23:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 Not done. New files are really better versions of same files. And Nikon did not make threats, this is normal message to stop edit wars. Taivo (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Nikon1803: Please review Commons:Signatures#Images in signature. You also continued copyvio uploading like File:BT21 Baby.jpg after final warning and two blocks. See also section Nikon1803 below.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that message is in really threatening, but this does look like a blatant violation of COM:OVERWRITE on the part of Nikon1803. "If another editor thinks that a change is not an improvement (even if the editor making the change thinks it minor), the change can be reverted. Once a change has been reverted, the new image should be uploaded under a new filename (unless the reverting editor explicitly or implicitly agrees to the contested change)." In these cases, Tiktomoro has reverted the changes, so if Nikon1803 wants to use the new versions they should upload them under new names. Is there something I'm missing? --bjh21 (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi everyone, let me explain the problem. I'm upload those original file as the logo is extracted from the PDF file from the official website, unchanged. The reason i reverted those file to the original version is because the new version are:
- slighly different shape (it's look like it has been redrawed, from my observasion by comparing the original version vs Nikko's version)
- the color is a little off
- some element has been deleted (the "®" symbol) which is part of the logo itself
- base on the three point above, this will give wrong impression of the logo
- the Nikko's version is bigger in size, both in the kilobytes (7 kb of original version vs 12 kb of new version), and the resolution of the logo, which is so unnecessary for SVG (scalable) file of a logo to have size over 300 px (unlike other SVG file such as illustrations, charts, graphics, maps, etc.)
- that is not improving anything.
So i hope this can be understood. Thank you. Sorry for my bad english. Tiktomoro (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Wrong! the reason why i change the logo is the prevoius one is too ugly. NIKO • (wanna talk to me?) 06:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The heck, Nikon1803! Ugly?
For your info, we do not see if it is "ugly" or not and FOR SURELY do not change pictures which may represent something else. Removing elements out of a logo? Yeah I am just, speechless. --Contributers2020Talk to me here! 11:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Nikon1803 You can't change anything even if the logo is awful; it's not a Wikipedia logo that we've been left to see what looks best and upload it; it's also not something as basic as an illustration; it's a logo, something the logo owner would create and draw; hence, you can't modify it.
I believe it is obvious to you that you should not alter the file. VScode fanboy (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted material of user with a history of disruptive behavior in Spanish Wikipedia

Hello administrators. I come to you to see if you could help me with this situation that has been dragging on since the Spanish Wikipedia. Well, it's about the user HOGD08 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , who has a similar behavior here in Commons than the one he had in esWiki. Well, in Spanish Wikipedia, the user was blocked multiple times (along with the recent block he has) for removal of critical maintenance templates, whitening of messages in his discussion page, edit wars, sabotage, adding the creation and recreation of deleted material with no apparent relevance. Here on Commons, the user has the same similar behavior, as he uploads logos without valid licenses that violate copyright (by claiming them as "Own work")[11][12][13], recreation of deleted files [14] and whitening of messages on his Commons talk page [15][16]. I hope you can help me to stop this user and his disruptive behavior that contributes nothing to both Wikipedia and Commons. Greetings and thank you very much for your attention!--Luis1944MX (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. Blocked for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

User repeatedly uploading copyvios

Can an admin either leave a stern note on his talk or just block? Hunterreeeer (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Per policy they should be warned before a block, which I have now done. @Koavf: In future you can warn them yourself and then bring them here if they persist Gbawden (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
As you can see, I posted to his talk, but he was disinterested in writing back. I could be mistaken (since his edits are deleted), but I think he just persisted in uploading whatever he found wherever on the Web, so I brought up the issue here. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

User:A.Savin

Nothing to do here. Content issues should be discussed on talk pages or deletion requests. Yann (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. Repurposing a Berlin-specific category for other usage [17], by doing so, destroying a Berlin-wide system [18]
  2. Moving 27 files related to Kaiser-Wilhelm-Platz from Category:Kaiser-Wilhelm-Platz (Berlin-Schöneberg) to Category:Richard-von-Weizsäcker-Platz (Berlin-Schöneberg) , example: [19]
  3. Redirecting a category having an infobox and connected to a Wikidata item 3x [20] [21] [22]
  4. Ignoring [23] the request to discuss first [24]
  5. (Not a mayor issue, but unfriendly and against transparency: Commons is mostly in English - there are 27,326 users in Category:User en and 10,193 users in Category:User de -, but answering in German to a question raised in English. [25] Note that the first user on that page also wrote in English [26], despite having dewiki as home wiki [27] )
  6. Stating something that is not true: "Zu dem gleichen Objekt mehrere parallele Kategorien zu haben, sowas machen wir hier auf Commons nicht." while probably knowing that it is not true Category:Berlin by year -> "2018 in Mitte (district of Berlin)" "2019 in Mitte (district of Berlin)" "Category:2021 in Neukölln (district of Berlin)"
  7. Personal attack [28]
  8. Removing contributions made by others and by themselves from talk page 3x [29] [30] [31]
  9. Templating user with "do not edit war" [32], while he is the one edit-warrying-away content
  10. Also has a cross-wiki dimension, where he removed verifiable data from a property [33]

BerlinBerlinBerlinBerlin (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC) // amended BerlinBerlinBerlinBerlin (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Another personal attack below at 04:12, 27 March 2022: "whereas BerlinBerlinBerlinBerlin for some reasons is editwarring to spread the same discussion to several places." - no evidence for that. BerlinBerlinBerlinBerlin (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Absurd complaint. The square Kaiser-Wilhelm-Platz was officially renamed to Richard-von-Weizsäcker-Platz, so its category was moved to the new name and yes, the files were moved too. IMO nothing wrong about this, see for comparison similar cases such as Category:Wissmannstraße (Berlin-Neukölln). Regarding this, I just tried to move the discussion to the place more relevant for this topic [34], whereas BerlinBerlinBerlinBerlin for some reasons is editwarring to spread the same discussion to several places. The point #6 ("Stating something that is not true...") I don't understand at all; maybe someone wishes to explain it to me. My edits to Wikidata are irrelevant for Commons. Regards --A.Savin 04:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
@GPSLeo and Geoprofi Lars: You as Berliners what do you think? Regards --A.Savin 04:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
For places we always use the current name as main category only. In some cases a redirect from the old name does not even exist like at Category:Stalinallee (Berlin). At the Stalinallee example there even exists a Category:Karl-Marx-Allee in the 1950s when the street had the name Stalinallee and not Karl-Marx-Allee. So moving the cat and all files from Kaiser-Wilhelm-Platz to Richard-von-Weizsäcker-Platz is absolutely fine. Of course the Wikidata links has to become changed too. --GPSLeo (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
@GPSLeo: which of the 10 points above do you refer to? BerlinBerlinBerlinBerlin (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
My English isn't the best right now, but I'll try to put my thoughts into words here. As I can see, Kaiser Wilhelm Platz has been renamed Richard-von-Weizsäcker-Platz. I think it's right and important to adapt all the corresponding categories and files. There's nothing wrong with that. To the languages. This argument is far-fetched. I mean, there's google translator these days. I am currently writing with Google translator because my knowledge of English is not sufficient. This also works with other languages. In addition, the affected user and you have not created a user page where you can indicate which languages ​​you speak. And Berlin is a German city somewhere. It's not far-fetched not to write in English. It's a shame that you felt personally taken by his words, but as a neutral observer I don't see anything reprehensible about his words. You participated in an edit war no less. I don't think there's a need for discussion here. Geoprofi Lars (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
@Geoprofi Lars: which of the 10 points above do you refer to? Re #5: "there's google translator these days" - so what? Shall each of multiple readers use Google translate, i.e. a piece translated multiple times, or should the one who writes translate once? I also wrote "Not a mayor issue, but unfriendly and against transparency" and that it is. You also write: "In addition, the affected user and you have not created a user page where you can indicate which languages ​​you speak." - I posted my question is English, I even mentioned that above: "answering in German to a question raised in English", so for me it was clearly indicated that I am fine with English. And, no, what you say is not true regarding User:A.Savin - on his page it is clearly stated "en-3". Last but not least, it doesn't matter that "Berlin is a German city somewhere" - all the category documentation is done in English for the best transparency. Re "I don't think there's a need for discussion here." - then why do you write here? BerlinBerlinBerlinBerlin (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Once again: We don't keep duplicated categories of the same object here. One object means one category. Now please just respect the opinion by three fellow users very much more longer active on Commons than you. Your aggressive approach is getting unbearable. "Alles Geisterfahrer", you know... Regards --A.Savin 02:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Can this be closed please? --A.Savin 13:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:USA 339.66.4416

Uploading out-of-scope website screengrabs with bad categories after a bulk deletion was started, and a request made on their talk page to stop. May be a bot that's not reading its talk page, given a lot of edits like this. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

User from 2015-2017 uploaded a bunch of likely copyvios, never caught

See Philiphw (talk · contribs). Everything is uploaded as "own work", including material which is definitely not his own work, such as File:Pavitt commodore.jpg attributed to a "Charles Peterson", File:Subterranean pop.jpg, artwork by a Linda Parry, and really a whole slew of other pictures of dubious provenance. These should probably all be nuked, given the numerous problems with this short-lived account. I will notify the account of the discussion here, but given the fact that it has been moribund for 5 years, I don't expect a response. --Jayron32 (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Marked the majority of uploads as without permission. Certain ther files can be reasonably scans of own works (e.g. 1980s photos) Ruthven (msg) 12:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Wonsyin06 (talk · contribs)

Sockpuppet account: Wonsyin04 (talk · contribs) Uploading files without license, some have been uploaded with wrong license, claimed as Own work. Leonel Sohns 19:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely. Now I'll delete some of their uploads. Taivo (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Radhika4435

Uploading out-of-scope pure text PDFs, characterised by some past admins as spam, which seems reasonable as the PDFs contain "get a discount quote" bluelinks. They've been asked to stop and haven't. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef and nuked. Ruthven (msg) 12:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Gif created not here to build an encyclopedic collection

Uploads are all garbage/nonsense and their talk page is gibberish. Probably should be blocked as w:wp:NOTHERE/w:wp:CIR Dronebogus (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

POV username

Великорусский империалист (talk · contribs). Username means something like "Great Russia imperialist". Username, coupled with only contribs so far, might suggest POV account? It Is Me Here (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. --A.Savin 13:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Sebano1999

Sebano1999 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  repeatedly deletes deletion templates from their uploads despite messages on their talk page asking them not to. I would prefer if they weren't blocked and they engage in the discussions, but I'm not seeing another way. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked two weeks, uploads nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Hüseyin Karataş

Uploading 2022 movie posters as CC-Attribution when they aren't, reuploading the same posters again when deleted and asked to learn about copyright. They're correctly crediting the film studio but the CC-Attribution claims are all incorrect. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him for a week. All uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Samsung Phones

Hi. User:Samsung Phones was reported to en's usernames for admin attention board, but they haven't done anything on en. However their behaviour on commons looks odd - phone retailer? Copyvios? Posting here to flag them up. Secretlondon (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Already flagged them at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Misleading/promotional_username yesterday. They're removing the background from existing Commons photos of Samsung phones so I assume they're just a fan. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

copyright violation by user:Mohammadranjbar

non of these uploads are user own works all taken from google image.[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted and final warning given. --GPSLeo (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

User:BigRed606

BigRed606 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  edit warring against multiple editors. Viewsridge (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block and I nominated one copyvio for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Category Shusha

@Tozina: made a redirect from Category:Shusha to Category:Şuşa and then moved page "Category:Shusha" to "Category:Şuşa" with a note "unification of AZ district/city names". This is the English language Commons. We should not introduce Turkic script unnecessarily. "Shushi" or "Shusha" is the common name in English / Latin letters. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Laurel Lodged, you are required to inform the users you report here per the header of this page. And as a best practice, you should have discussed this with the user before seeking admin assistance. -- Hulged (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I pinged him above. But I'll open a separte talk item for him now too. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Not satisfied with changing thename from the Armenian "Shushi" to the Azeri "Shusha", this and other Az-POV editors now want to push Turkic letters on Commons. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

CatStepan2006

CatStepan2006 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  New copyvio uploads despite multiple warnings, including 'the last one'. --Xunks (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. That's correct, but as Stepan has no edits (living or dead) since October, block is not practical. Taivo (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Phatvudai

Phatvudai (talk · contribs)

New copyright violation uploads and also reuploads of deleted ones despite final warnings by Lord Belbury in March 27, 2022, and subsequently blocked by admin De728631 a few hours later for "Uploading unfree files after warnings" for a duration of 3 days. Yesterday (April 2), I've to filed CSD for 7 uploads for license laundering, and today they uploaded 7 new license laundering images by disguising it as taken by themselves (which they admitted in this revision) when it's clearly taken by their phone/camera with the images displayed on their monitor, such as with this, this, and this which they clearly took it from Girls' Generation official IG with their phone/camera, certainly not a screencaptured or downloaded. — Paper9oll 13:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

What? From my phone and camera. Phatvudai (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Phatvudai Your reply clearly shows that you're not remorseful and/or having a understanding of the situation which has been communicated to you through various warnings on your talk page by various editors, hence please don't try to fool us, we're not stupid. — Paper9oll 13:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
✓ Blocked - FitIndia Talk ✉ 17:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio by Pegash

These uploads are copyvios. The user is not owner of those uploaded media. I request for mass deletion than tagging each images for deletion. --~AntanO4task (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Nuked Ruthven (msg) 11:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian propagandist

The user Kursant504 is naming for deletion any image from Ukraine, specifically the ones related with the Butcha massacre, and added more than 500 propaganda photos of the Russian army in 2 weeks (somme exemples : Russian servicemen delivered humanitarian aid to the settlements of the Kiev region or more recently Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation: "Servicemen of the engineering units of the Southern Military District continue humanitarian demining of the Kherson region"). His history (older posts) shows that he's close to the Russian army. --Hyméros --}-≽ ♥ Yes ? 17:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ 3 months block. --A.Savin 17:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Tuantruong2312 and TrumNamDinh

According to this file's description and usage, these two accounts belongs to one person. Tuantruong was warned for uploading copyvios in last November, so it seems that TrumNamDinh was created for the purpose of evading scrutiny. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 09:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Sock is blocked indef. All obvious copyvios deleted. The rest is here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TrumNamDinh. Yann (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

User:AdiNugraha23

The user has continued to upload of obvious copyvio photographs (usually Getty or AP photos) after countless notices and two requests to stop. The user has not responded to any comments on the talk page. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. All files will be deleted. Yann (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit warrior at File:Human Intercourse.webm

An IP (14.242.139.57) keeps re-adding long, poorly written descriptions to this file. Requesting protection (er, pun not intended). Dronebogus (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I semi-protected it indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

DedaGrga

DedaGrga (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) junk files only. RZuo (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done, all deleted. --A.Savin 23:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Kitszlong

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

Keep uploading unfree YouTube or Bilibili video screenshots after warning. —Tim Wu (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Kitszlong for a week and will delete some copyvios. Taivo (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Falk2 editing as IP again

See also past discussions. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Blocked the range 2003:d5:d71a:d701::/64 for 1 week. Ruthven (msg) 11:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Was any of the edits inappropriate? --A.Savin 13:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@A.Savin: Mostly not inappropriate, as I could see. There were two unwarranted uncategorizations (likely done out of spite, maybe also cluelessness), which I reinstated. I’m all for blocked editors being allowed continued positive contribuiting, as IPs or even under new account names, but that’s not what happened with Russavia and AlexisJazz, to name but two (although in turn, that was not what was done for INeverCry, so…). If Falk2’s disruptive edits were continuedly minoritary among good ones and guarantedly affecting only his feud against me, then his IP range could be tentatively unblocked, as I could likely ensure a fairly through and swift clean-up since most of his problematic edits I found out in the past were flagged in my watchlist — but I am not certain that is the case. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@A.Savin The doubt that I have is if the categories that Falk2 has created, are named following the consensus of the community or if they are created/renamed all by his own. Using an IP is usually a way to avoid community consensus and is always suspicious. In that case, editing anonymously seems to have been done to avoid Tuválkin's scrutiny. --Ruthven (msg) 13:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ruthven: I would not say that there is any overall issue with Falk2’s newly created categories, but rather with uncategorizing of individual media files — based on misguided notions on Commons categorization (seeing category pages as galleries, to make a long story short) and file page ownership. Apart from the rudeness, as commented. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyrighted TV screenshot

File:Tales_from_the_Cryptkeeper.png is a copyrighted television screenshot, thanks Wizzito (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. Next time please add {{speedydelete|why the file must be deleted}} on beginning of the file. Taivo (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Bull-Doser

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Clearly there's a problem here, but what are you looking for as a remedy?
Are you trying to have Bull-Doser sanctioned? Some other account? Some account that you think is a Bull-Doser sock?
I'm against blocks or bans of Bull-Doser, unless they become unavoidable. There's a quality issue on many of their uploads and so (rightly) there will be many DRs appearing in the future. They should still be able to reply at those. I would encourage Bull-Doser to take past comments on board and to not upload further images that have quality or scope problems so bad as to create more of the same – but that's not a block. If there was to be a block on all future uploads (i.e. if the problem continues), I'd probably support that too. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Reading the o.p., I feel that the uploading of bad quality photos is the least concern when dealing with this user. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley and Yann: I am looking for a block of Bull-Doser. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Technically, maybe not (but then we can block). But what's the minimum that would fix the issues you're concerned of? Do you want a ban on uploads? Presumably we all want a ban on incomplete DRs etc., which would have to depend on Bull-Doser agreeing to observe that and then sticking to it (with a block if they don't).
I don't want to block Bull-Doser, I don't want to exclude them from DRs raised on their content, I don't want to ban them from uploading (their uploads aren't the most valuable things ever, but nor do I think they're bad enough to justify a simple ban). Does anyone disagree (i.e. they just want a simple block) ? Does anyone think that this just can't be done, without a technical block? I wouldn't oppose one, if that's what our general feeling is. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Brishzombie repeatedly making false authorship claims, suspected sockpuppet

Brishzombie (talk · contribs) Has made false claims of authorship for every file that they have uploaded to the Commons. They have continued to do so despite multiple messages telling them not to do this and have not responded to messages on their talk page. The images are public domain, so no copyright violations have occurred abd I have provided correct attribution on those pages. Based on previous encounters with Flopbean, who has made similar false claims of copyright ownership on tornado-related images, I suspect that this account is a sockpuppet of Mazum24. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the Zombie indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Mass copyvio

Accidental Geniu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . I started checking his contributions - all images so far are stolen from other websites. Keep searching sources for those left ones looks to be long and pointless process, they are all have low resolution and all were shot with different cameras. Most likely, all the files should be deleted. --Xunks (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Chlen ka

Chlen ka (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) uploads dozens of images with false free license. Kamolan (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Final warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Offa29 forcing their changes despite being reverted

User:Offa29 has been trying for a few days to impose their version of File:Metric and imperial systems (2019).svg despite my and another user's opposition. They have refused to discuss their change to the talk page. Veverve (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Have they been invited to discuss their changes? Their edit-warring is unimpressive and is block-worthy, but you're just as much a part of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: I have invited the user to discuss numerous times in my revert summaries, so did another user once. Offa29 never did. Offa29 's last edit summary shows they are unwilling to talk it through: I see that someone has already brought it up on the talk page, and been completely ignored. No surprise there. Veverve (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
"Communication by edit summary" is an infamously poor way to do it. Pinging them on a new talk: page thread would be far better. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"Russian invasion of Ukraine" name edit warring

I think a lock is needed on this.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Special_Military_Operation_in_Ukraine,_2022&action=history Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Could anybody explain what is wrong with this naming? Or problem only in that is was "edit war"? But if by the rules [35]- is "edit war" was really started? Also I want to say that after this edit's I, precisely in order not to start a war of edits, at first - invite user Tm to discussion on my talk page - he "refused" [36]. After that I wrote message on his talk page to state my position and learn more about his position [37]. And also received no answer.--Kursant504 (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism or misguided attempts to contribute?

GoneDoge! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. GoneDoge has repeatedly overwritten flags with modified colors without giving any source that would justify the change. E.g. they had a revert-war at File:Flag_of_Hungary.svg, ignoring the "official recommendation for colors" on the page and giving poor reasons such as "made it lighter because i want to change the flag brightness". I asked them to be more careful, to provide sources and to not revert reverts on their talk page, but despite that they decided to change File:Flag_of_Belgium.svg, ignoring the specific colors mentioned in the file's information and its Wikipedia page. My revert was met with another revert (with a rather rude comment). Please intervene. TilmannR (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month, hopefully they'll lose interest. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

copy right violation

non of theses uploads are own work all taken from google image [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

All uploads tagged and user warned. --Túrelio (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done All files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

copy right violation

all of these uploads are copy right violation [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

All uploads tagged and user warned. Yann (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: all the files this users uploads All rights reserved by farsi (persian)[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Harassment by an administrator

I have recently commented on A.Savin's nomination for deletion of a lot of Butko's images, stating why their point of view is incorrect. Unexpectedly, he decided that harassing someone who doesn't agree with him is a good idea. I believe that this user should have their administrator rights revoked. SummerKrut (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, the fact is, I have tagged a photo where two probably unfree images with unknown source and author are prominently visible, as "COM:DW no source", and the uploader is now removing the tag in editwar modus [38] [39] and opening this ANU case without any prior discussion attempt. This very much looks like someone is begging for their user rights to be "revoked". Regards --A.Savin 21:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The images are permanently situated in a public place + the author is unknown. SummerKrut (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
SummerKrut, I see in an edit summary you said photos of street banners are not derivative works. That is not correct. Russia does not have applicable freedom of panorama, so Commons cannot host photos of copyrighted works (which we assume works like this are), even if displayed in public, unless we have documentation that they are freely licensed or not under copyright. Tagging a file as such (as well as reinstating an improperly removed tag) is not harassment, so you'll need additional links to evidence of harassment to make that case. — Rhododendrites talk |  02:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
These posters are (fortunately) not permanently installed, which means no country in the world would recognize FoP for them. Regards --A.Savin 04:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Could you tell me what policy states that "photos of street banners are derivative works"? COM:DW has nothing on this. SummerKrut (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@SummerKrut, even if they were permanently installed, these posters/murals are not covered by Russia's freedom-of-panorama exception. All 3 of them are clearly creative works and above COM:TOO. So, only its creators can give a permission. --Túrelio (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
what policy states that "photos of street banners are derivative works" it doesn't matter if they're street banners, posters, advertisements, paintings, a clip from a movie, etc. Taking a photo of a creative work in its context (on the street, in a gallery -- wherever) creates a derivative work. That's simply what a derivative work is, so there's no need to get specific regarding "street banners". — Rhododendrites talk |  12:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done File deleted. Nothing to do here. Yann (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
You didn't explain enough why you deleted the file, so you didn't have the right to delete it. SummerKrut (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@SummerKrut: COM:CSD#F1.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Are you going to cite any proofs or just leave a plain link without any explanation? SummerKrut (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
It has been explained to you why by Túrelio and Rhododendrites, A.Savin also pointed that there is no FoP. It was correctly deleted, please move on. Bidgee (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
For god's sake... Pictures of banners are not derivative works. You just delete everything that you don't like. SummerKrut (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe this is a language/translation problem. It is as the others told you. The "original" in this case is the art (here the banner). The photo you take is derived from this art, since it could not exist without the original. And if the original is copyrighted, so is the photo you take (at least in most countries and most circumstances) from it. Especially here, since there in no special case of "Freedom of Panorama" for this banners. Regards --Mirer (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@SummerKrut: Can banners be copyrighted?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but in this case no because COM:TOO (simple geometric shapes). SummerKrut (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@SummerKrut: What are those "simple geometric shapes"? Is this photo available off-wiki?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
What are those "simple geometric shapes"? - letter Z, and nothing else. SummerKrut (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
That's completely untrue! The currently deleted photo (File:Sieg Heil salute posters Western Russia.jpg), which was obviously shot in a pedestrian zone, shows actually 2 separate totally artistic representations of the "Z", one of them extending over 2 large rectangular banners, one is on the third banner. In the latter, the line of the letter Z is replaced by 14 two-colored handprints. Below the Z are 3 words, likely in Russian. In the former, the line of the letter Z is replaced by a 5-strip ribbon (color black/orange/black/orange/black), which continues from the lower leg of the Z onto the second banner. In addition, each of these larger banners carries in the foreground of the ribbon an additional graphic element; the 1st banner a b/w photo of a (likely Russian) "hero" carrying a child on his arm, the 2nd banner a graphic of 2 open hands with a poppy-flower. --Túrelio (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Snowie81

User Snowie81 uploaded two files which are not in scope (flag and coat of arms of a fictional country); I nominated them for deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Snowie81). Snowie81 responded by using profanity against me on my talk page (diff), removing the deletion notice from the user talk page (diff), and uploading another flag of a fictional country (File:Flag of Averna.png). I don't think this user is here to constructively contribute to the project. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Turned into outright vandalism; taken to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#Snowie81. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
✓ Blocked for a week for disruptive editing. -- CptViraj (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
All files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Saraiva Bernardo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

All the pictures uploaded by this new user are out-of-scope selfies. Could an administrator warn him and delete all those photos. Pierre cb (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. --A.Savin 12:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Problems with User:Matsievsky

A few days ago I nominated Category:Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1923, all stamps for discussion, a category scheme that was created by Matsievsky. They subsequently derailed it by defensively talking in circles, misconstruing policy, and repeatedly insulting me. After that I had nominated some duplicate, lower quality, and (or) redundant files related to Russian stamps for deletion. Including here, , here, and here. In every instance they have used the exact same tactics to try and derail the discussions. Including insulting me, miss-characterizing things, talking in circles, and generally being defensive. Nowhere have they made any actual good faithed, guideline based comments. In deletion discussions or otherwise.

At first I was willing to assume good faith, but in the nomination for "The Soviet Union 1980 Illustrated stamped envelope" they linked to Commons talk:Superseded images policy, a discussion about replacing higher quality SVG files with lower quality PNG files, which clearly has nothing to do with why I nominated the image for deletion. Then, when I said as much, they accused me of being a "Storyteller" and said it had nothing to do with file formats, which it clearly does. Plus they repeatedly brought up file formats in the discussion. It's completely ridiculous and borderline gaslighting to claim otherwise. They also voted twice in one of the nominations, which obviously shouldn't be done. The fact that they didn't sign their vote the first time, but did with their subsequent vote and every comment they have made in the meantime, makes it seem like intentional vote manipulation. To add on to everything else they reverted a couple of edits yesterday that were rather and there was no reason to revert. Which just comes off as revenge editing.

Nothing they have done seems good faithed. Either Matsievsky is incompetent or has some serious battleground and ownership issues when it comes to images of Russian stamps. Given the the defensiveness, insults, and obstruction of my edits I assume they just have ownership issues. So I'd appreciate it if an administrator would give Matsievsky a civility warning. It would also help if they were also told not treat deletion discussions like a battleground anymore. It's extremely disruptive to the process, violates the civility guidelines, and I'm tired of dealing with it. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Adamant1 described his actions well too. I'm tired of dealing with it too. Matsievsky (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how I could have described my actions well when I've literally done nothing you have. Otherwise, Can you point to any files you've nominated for deletion or categories for discussion you opened that I've participated in or insulted you over? What about targeting and reverting your edits like you did to me? I'm not aware of me doing either. Where have I double voted to manipulate the process like you have? Hell, were exactly did I call you "Storyteller" or say your making up fantasies like you did to me? I'm not sure what your tired of dealing with either, except for the discussions that you responsible for participating in. It's not on me that you decide to join or go off in the discussions I started. If your so tired of doing so, just stay out of them. I'm totally fine with that. Really, I think that would be the best way to deal with this. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
BTW, I was just looking through your talk page and it seems like you've had problems with other people in the past over the exact same issues. I.E. adding "Both JPEG and PNG formats can be loaded together" to every category, you going off about people nominating duplicate files for deletion, the whole thing about files being organized by and named after their catalog number. The fact that your still arguing about all those things a year later and after pushback from multiple people really makes me think your just incapable of getting the point and aren't here to build a encyclopedia media repository. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Small remark: Wikimedia Commons is not an encyclopedia. It's a media repository. Strakhov (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
True. I corrected it. Muscle memory from editing Wikipedia I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

IP 154.125.43.207 insults me, calls me a vandal

See their edit summary: u will have to btch on adminstrators board with other wik(morons to block the triuth, as i wil never allow you vandalism [...]). Veverve (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, this wikimoron protected the category for 30 days and blocked the IP for 3 days. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 Info This is a well known LTA and the IP is likely an open proxy. See also COM:ANB#Category:Joseph Stalin. --ToughDonk (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Xtreme o7

Xtreme o7 (talk · contribs) has a long history of uploading images with bad or incorrect licenses, despite requests to stop. They have since uploaded File:Pakistan Air Force Air Defence Command Emblem (Blue and White).jpg which they are claiming as own work, stating "I literally took the pics", and File:PAF Base Minhas Embelm.jpg which they are also claiming as own work, stating "What the hell is your problem?I literally took this pic and scanned it through adobe. Ifk why i get the feeling that your some Indian guy trying his best to stop me from uploading graphical works to develop Pakistani pages but these are my own works". Xenophobia aside, neither image looks remotely like a picture that's just been taken, allegedly on a mobile. FDW777 (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@FDW777: Thanks for your report. I am also suspicious. What is the user's "other account" per that last diff?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I am guessing it may be Pr0pulsion 123 (talk · contribs) based on this, that account also has a history of similarly bad uploads. FDW777 (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
They have apparently confirmed that to be the case. FDW777 (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Also see "That file is supposed to be under the fair use tag i don't think we need owner's permission in fair use cases", which suggests they don't understands how Commons works. FDW777 (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
@FDW777: Thanks again, I added a couple of bullets above.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrg6jcstbwtcu (talk · contributions · Statistics)

Wrg6jcstbwtcu's contributions to the English Wikipedia look plausible, so I don't think it's a spam account. But their "contributions" in the Commons are pretty wild: Reverting files to various old versions multiple times in a row for no apparent reason. Heralder already told them to stop, but they didn't respond. Maybe there's a language barrier? Most of their edits are in the Korean and Japanese Wikipedias. Maybe they are just trying to browse through the file history, but instead of clicking on the thumbnails they click "revert"? I don't know. TilmannR (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. One month blo9ck, but I did not revert anything. Taivo (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Zache

This user has spent the past few days removing images from international wiki projects, apparently in preparation for a mass deletion request. This is the latest in a number of attempts by various users to remove illustrations by User:Midnight68.

While Midnight68 was blocked over a decade ago, their work has been consistently deemed in-scope by community consensus, most recently in January 2020. Please note that most of the nominated files were in use, some of them on as many as 8 different projects. Since 17 April 2022, many of them have been selectively removed from non-English wikis without regard to Wikipedia's non-censorship policies.

While I assume good faith on Zache's behalf, I feel they should explain why they have specifically targeted images produced by User:Midnight68. These are useful, free-licensed pictures that have been in use since 2017 (in a few cases, since 2010), and contrary to Zache's apparent beliefs, have been entirely within commons scope during that time.

They should not be removed simply because their creator was banned ten years ago; as pointed out in the previous DR, "Commons has no equivalent to the Book of Judges which encourages blocked users to have their contributions salted; files are hosted on their own merit based on scope rather than who uploaded them." JasonGlennHuntly (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, images have been deemed in scope as they were in-use in different Wikipedia projects. However, they were in widescale use mostly because Midnight68 and his follow-up accounts were adding or in some cases clearly spammed to the different articles. Also, note that in most cases i have replaced the images with better ones. -- Zache (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, it is more or less problematic to use images from the set of images of simulated child pornography/abuse in wikipedia articles like Magic girl even the image itself would be borderline ok. Another example is cover of fictitious magazine about spanking minor from same author as an example in article which topic is spanking in sexual context.[40]. --Zache (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
And just clear facts, Midnight68 images were mostly deleted when he was banned: [41] --Zache (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
@Zache: as you know, our policies state that any image used in a mainspace article is within scope. Did you remove the images from the other projects so that you could claim they were out of scope? If this was not your intent, why remove them at all? You could have made the same arguments outlined above without removing anything. JasonGlennHuntly (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, if you believe that any of these images are child pornography (simulated or otherwise), you need to contact Wikimedia's legal department (legal-reports@wikimedia.org). That is the normal procedure on Commons. JasonGlennHuntly (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Commons admins can do that if they see it fit. -- Zache (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Sure, it is not point to deletion request if it's result is pre-defined. Vandalism cleanup work in wikis was also something which needed to be do. What happened is that I was reading ruwikis discussion about w:Roskomnadzor notifications and 04/07/2022 notification was about 10 photos in Wikimedia Commons. (RKN notification page in ruwiki). When I checked the photos I noticed they contained
  1. drawings were about nude kids
  2. they contained likely vandalism in the sense that they were used in articles not in scope
  3. they were images which have substantially changed after they have been added to the articles. Most commonly there nude young girl in the show shower. :::# When i continued checking the other files from then I found photoshopped apps with half nude kids File:VideoPlayerLinuxAnime.png, File:GimpScanlation001.png, File:WikiReader018.png ... and photoshopped adds File:PollyPigtails28pp47.png which some were used in articles not related to nude kids.
I would say that this is clear case of vandalism. There is a lot of cases content is clearly fake and i think that we should be cautious with the image descriptions can be invented too and exists only to keep the image in Commons/article. In example file:TimeLine001.png style of the image and descriptions propably doesn't represent correctly the time. So it is safe to delete most of images as out-of-scope as images fakes, poorly made and mainly used for vandalism. There may be images what we see that they should be keep, but in my opinnion over half arent those. --Zache (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • INUSE isn't an automatic keep. If these should be deleted (and Zache has a reasonable case here, although I express no opinion as to its outcome) then that would apply whether they're INUSE or not. So pre-emptive removal of them from articles is both unnecessary, and (as always) seen as an attempt to stack a deletion discussion. Even if in this case such a deletion discussion would have a bit more weight to it than the usual bulk-deletion-by-author scenario (which is rarely a good look).
These should be restored to the articles, the deletion discussion opened, and then comment sought from the Wikipedias (that is after all why we're here). We're OK with drawings of nude kids and drawings of upskirts (Yes, really), even though it's an obviously problematic area. If we need such illustrations to illustrate relevant, notable articles, and if we can provide such illustrations without excessive stretch of local mores (and international law) then it's within NOTCENSORED to keep them (much as we do at present, no doubt subject to some minor adjustment).
Should we keep them? (A question that has no place on this page, it belongs in a deletion discussion, or a policy discussion) Well, I for one am not here to archive simplistic pantyporn and I've never seen WTF "Wikipetan" is doing anywhere near the project. But there's a lot more to this question than what the settings are on my personal prude-o-meter. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
These should be restored to the articles, the deletion discussion opened, and then comment sought from the Wikipedia. I will pass this. I already changed to most of the images to better in the sence that they were more in line with the content. Ie. I changed advertisents images to real ones, changed game images to games which exists etc, changed software screenshots to something which didn't include panties. If somebody in commons wants to explain in Wikipedia's why their images should be those then feel free to do it. Editing content to better is how it should be done in wikipedias and my take was to remove those. --Zache (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Changing an illustration to more established (published) media from a banned user's own fake erotic video games is a good thing. Changing illustrations from erotic depictions of minors to depictions of adults, where it otherwise doesn't matter to the subject, is a good thing. A spot check shows that these are generally positive changes, regardless of whether we keep the files. There is an argument that we lack free media for some subjects, but I'm generally of the mind that "Commons is not Deviant Art" such that we must host dozens/hundreds/thousands of low quality personal fetish drawings. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
@Zache: I'm sorry, but our Scope Policies are pre-defined. If an image is in mainspace use it is automatically considered to be of educational value, especially in the case of long-term files. If you believe that COM:SCOPE needs to be revised, I'd suggest that you start a topic on the Village Pump (though I don't much envy your chances in that regard, to be honest).
Also, so far as I can see, you did not seek community consensus to remove illustrations from local wikis, and your attempts to remove material from the hentai article on En.Wikipedia were reverted on two occasions (though you seem to be ignoring Sandtalons's advice on the subject). The majority of these images were not considered vandalism by their local communities over the past five years, suggesting that they were considered relevant to their articles.
I see no evidence of vandalism, as you call it. Free license and public domain images are often altered, re-touched and/or reverted, that is standard practice on Commons. There is also no prohibition against using composite images as long as all of the elements are free-licence/PD, which seems to be the case in the collages you pointed out.
I'm not sure what you mean by "fake." Creating a convincing image of a magazine advert or a gimp screenshot is not fraud, especially when the description states that the image is a photoshop collage combining original artwork with PD material. That is not deception: that is creating a viable image that looks like the real thing - again, something many editors do here on Commons.
Quality is, of course, a matter of opinion, but our policy is to keep images that are already in use, regardless of the creator's level of technical ability.
By the way, if you are going to describe any file on this site as child pornography, then it is your responsibility to contact the Legal department, as nobody else here has made that particular claim (and certainly not any of the administrators). If the Wiki's legal council agrees with you, it will undoubtedly bolster your case when you eventually file your deletion request.
However, I would advise that you leave the mainspace images where they are for the time being (if not restore them altogether). If you continue removing in-use illustrations, it could be seen as gaming the system here on Commons or an attempt to censor content on local communities.
In my opinion, they should all be kept based on the previous DRs and the fact that we can easily check which images were in use (and therefore in-scope) over the past four or five years. If you can find definitive proof that any of these were copyright violations or otherwise illegal, well and good, but as a general rule, Commons does not delete content simply because some people find it objectionable.JasonGlennHuntly (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I didn't ignore Sandalion's revert, but explained it and then I replaced image instead of just removing it. -- Zache (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

user:Ricmay222

User is only uploading personal nude photos, not here to contribute productively. Please block and delete all their uploads. Dronebogus (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Cesar David MP

This user has a history of wrong edits and uploads new versions without providing reliable sources. The last of them was changing the current flag of Palestine and the copy of the flag of the Palestinian revolution 1936 to darker shades without obtaining consensus.--Sakiv (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days, both files reverted. Yann (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: the user continues the edit war at another two files Flag of Palestine - long triangle.svg and Flag of Palestine - short triangle.svg.--Sakiv (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, the original ones were dark, so your version should be uploaded as a separate file. Yann (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Reporting users

Both upload copyvios after final warning. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 06:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Both blocked for a week. A checkuser request may be useful. Yann (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
They are technically unrelated. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 09:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Munyaruhengeri Jean Pierre Alpha

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Exponential map on complex matrices.pdf is not a "personal image" , so it could be in scope. Idem for File:Application of differential geometry Map projection.pdf. I blocked JEAN PIERRE ALPHA. Yann (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks, but are those files similar to deleted File:Exponential maps on complex matrices.pdf? CC Missvain and FitIndia as deleting Admins of File:Exponential maps on complex matrices.pdf and File:Exponential map on complex matrices.pdf.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, we don't need duplicate files. Yann (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Then please delete File:Exponential map on complex matrices.pdf speedily as a recreation of File:Exponential maps on complex matrices.pdf per COM:CSD#G4 and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Exponential maps on complex matrices.pdf.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
IMO, this could be in scope. Yann (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

File (Bild) Dateiversion Kommentar bearbeiten

hallo, beim Bearbeiten einer File-Seite ist der Bereich Dateiversion nicht sichtbar. wie lässt sich der Kommentar ändern ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wschmock (talk • contribs) 12:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

Der Hochladekommentar lässt sich nicht bearbeiten. Wenn er Spam, Beleidigungen oder aus Versehen persönliche Informationen enthält kann er von Admins versteckt werden. Enthält der Kommentar einfach nur einen Fehler kann der Kommentar bleiben, auf der eigentlichen Seite steht es ja korrekt. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
in den Hochladekommentaren stehen Limks in Rot obwohl sie vorhanden sind und einige Tippfehler. bedauerlich dass man das nicht korrigieren kann. Wschmock (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
die Hochladekommentare erscheinen in der Dateiliste der hochgeladenen Dateien als Beschreibung. es ist aber weder ein Kommentar noch eine Beschreibung sondern das Log vom Hochladen und ist nicht verwertbar. derartige irreführende Bezeichnungen sollte es bei Wikipedia eigentlich nicht geben. Wschmock (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

user Tm

I want to ask the administrators to evaluate the behavior of the user @Tm: regarding me. I think that there is may be a some type of harassment and constant persistent accusation of something incomprehensible. User adds these accusations to his messages wherever he can.
Some links: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46],
Also he started a edit war [47], and when I tried to solve the issue on his page, he just ignored it [48]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kursant504 (talk • contribs)

I merely state, in several deletion requests about images taken by the Armed Forces of Ukraine or other ukrainian state organizations, that you opened that you are:
1-A prolific uploader of putinist propagand imagery from the russian MOD all about this putinist war of agression, as can be seen by his uploads. Are you going to deny this????
2- Do you deny that opened frequent deletion requester of images of putinist crimes like the Mariupol Drama Theatre or the Massacre of Bucha (note once or twice or third but at least four different images or images of destroyed russian T-80 tanks. Do you denny that you comment in the same kind of deletion requests with the same pattern like or the aftermath of the Battle of Hostomel and the images of heavy losses of the Russian Airborne troops.? As your patterns shows your openings of deletion requests are under clearly wrong and untrue reasons, as again and again you try to delete images taken and uploaded by the ukranian state organizations, under the cover of "concerns" with unexisting copyright violations. And to the contrary of you i vote to delete images of this war made by ukrainians when there is a genuine concern about copyright
3- That the deletion requests related to the Massacre of Bucha got you blocked for 3 months for "(Vandalism: continued disruptive deletion requests)", a move supported by several administrators.
4- Do you deny that you never ever made any references to the fact that you are a prolific uploader of images made\uploaded to the Russian Ministry of Defense, when i made statements about my potential COI, more than once?
5- Do you deny, to the contray of what you stated above that i "started a edit war", that there is Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#"Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine"_name_edit_warring, just because you created Category:Special Military Operation in Ukraine, 2022, just because "that's what they call it in Russia", a euphemism and newspeak for war of agression? And that same category was protected do to edit warring and yet i received zero warnings about edit warring (as can be checked by seeing my talkpage edit history), to the contrary of you that received one warning for edit warring?


6- Do you deny that since April 14 2002 in your own userpage you falsely call me of being a russophobe? Or that your own links, prove that you already know that to be false as you participated in a discussion between you, me and another russian user and clearly disprove what you state about me being a russophobe. (and funny that i did not opened anything about you here about that comment)
7- Do you deny that you contradict yourself when in one case the files are made the soviet military, uploaded to the russian Ministry of Defense, and reuploaded by you to Commons the free license is clear versus when the case is the ukrainian state organs uploading files to their websites or social media under free licenses and user reuploading it to Commons, the free license are invalid, according to you.
Or do you deny the fact that you argued that an image being taken by an ukrainian servicemen during his official duties (an soldier in active war zone and under martial law is always discharging his official duties) and them this images being published by the official websites or social media of the Armed Forces of Ukraine "It is mean nothing. If you want to say that since the photo was taken by a serviceman, the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine has the right to dispose of these materials, then you are wrong. That's not how it works. ". Really? In what you base your assumptions? In what ukrainian law, regulation or statute you base your bold claims???
Do you deny that this is flagrant contradiction with your vivid assertions to the contrary, about image uploaded by you, where is the case of an image taken by a soviet military photograph during WW2 and the same image being published by the Russia Ministry of Defense website, you said that "The photographer was a war correspondent of the "Krasnaya Zvezda" newspaper and serves in the Soviet army. Taking these photos was his job, his duties in military service. And the results of his work belong to the Soviet army (as a newspaper owner) and now to its legal successor - the Ministry of Defense of Russia (as the current owner of the newspaper). 1) Why Mil.ru can't use them as they want?". So when is the Russian MOD it can dispose of the copyright of soviet military photos, but the Ukrainian Armed Forces cannot dispose of the photos taken by the servicemen of Ukrainian Armed Forces during their active duty? What a flagrant contradiction you have here. Tm (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that you have a bad habit of writing a lot of words not on business (again...). You have asked a lot of questions here not on the subject of the request. I will answer them here if the administrators deem it necessary. Kursant504 (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@Kursant504: I concour with Tm above. I suggest you take a step back before being blocked again. Yann (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
My first and only blocking was not reasoned and no one of the administrators explained to me what I violated (maybe did not want to explain? I thought that it is a part of the administrator's work - maybe I was wrong?..). None of the administrators began to answer my fair arguments about those DRs. And my unblocking request was granted. If, according to the rules, I will receive a reasonable warning from the administrator, then I will reconsider my behavior again. I'm not breaking any rules at this moment. My DRs are justified. Of course, it is not very comfortable that DRs are considered by administrators for a long time and there is no way to rate my arguments. I am sure that if mistakes wiil be found in my work, the community will help me understand them for I don't make new mistakes in the future. Kursant504 (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Taivo: You had unblocked Kursant with the explanation as simple as "Let's see what's going to happen now". Well, now we all can see -- multiple pro-putinist trolling is what actually happens. Was this really worth it? Do you like to consider to re-instate the block? Regards --A.Savin 11:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

+1. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe at this time you can tell me what exactly you didn't like? Because you haven't answered any of my questions to you before. Kursant504 (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Kitszlong

Keep uploading unfree images after unblocking. --Tim Wu (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. One month block (second block). Taivo (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

m:Requests for comment/Global de-adminship for Jusjih

A user is requesting to "global de-admin" (sorry I really don't know how likely if this could be happened) @Jusjih: which in requestor's claim, has many disruptive and abusive behaviors in several Chinese-language projects and Meta-Wiki, the requestor is also mentioned Commons here where Jusjih is also an administrator, but didn't say anything else on their Commons' behaviors. Do any of our adminships that may or may not familiar Jusjih's works know how to resolve it? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

There are no problems with Jusjih in Commons. I said that in discussion in meta as well. We in Commons can very well decide ourselves, who is worthy being administrator and who isn't. Taivo (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello all, Commons will no longer be included in the scope. Your opinions will be still welcomed if you will. Thank you. Zhxy 519 (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Passive-aggressive abuse by user Steindy

I have been having some difficulty dealing with User:Steindy recently. When a rewiever either declines or questions the quality of his work over at QIC, he has a tendency to respond with passive-aggressive abuse, making ironic attacks such as: "I realize that based on your experience, you are the only true expert whose point of view is absolutely correct." and "Thank you very much (...) for this professional rating!" (meaning he disagrees and mocks the reviewers' know-how). There is currently a discussion on one of his images over at Consensual Review, where I was ready to defer to a democratic decision but he seems to take it personally:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&oldid=652549298#File:SV_Mattersburg_vs._SK_Rapid_Wien_2015-11-21_(137).jpg

Back in November -21, I tried addressing this problematic behaviour as diplomatically as I could, but as he has now returned to the same ways, I feel it necessary to notify the administrators and get your opinion on the matter. --Peulle (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Username violation and w:wp:NOTHERE

user:Madexhibitionist’s name is an obvious username policy violation and they live up to it. Please block. Dronebogus (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed and nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Peter58home20 caption text

The only edits Peter58home20 (talk · contribs) has made have been to add captions to images, mostly very strange ones that suggest Peter doesn't understand what captions are for. He seems to be writing as if they're social media shares (adding dates which are the time he wrote the comment, rather than the time the photo was taken), or a way to communicate with the subject of the picture:

  • a 2017 photo of Joe Elliott gets "Good on Joe Elliot 11/04/2022😷😴❤😎👍🏻🇬🇧",
  • a 2011 photo of Roger McGuinn gets "Hi Roger 03042022",
  • a sketch by Edvard Munch gets "Let Women be FREE/08/03/2022"
  • an image of Torquay town hall has its previous caption about being Torquay town hall replaced with "i was born at Alexandra nursing home Plymouth Devon/06/11/1949"

I asked Peter to stop doing this and write neutral captions instead earlier this month but he didn't respond and has carried on with the emoji "Hello George" stuff. I don't know if it's possible that he's editing these captions at Wikipedia and not seeing his Commons talk page, but if he remains unaware of the problem or doesn't understand it, the account may need blocking. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days. Hopefully the message will get through. Yann (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Jamuelcondez

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for two week. Yann (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Pi.1415926535

Hello, I'm Matlin, but i can't use any namespace, so i must violate my block. But I think I'm doing it in good faith.

This admin doesn't intervene, nor respond to my e-mail, that I'm wrong, nor give me any contact with the person who can intervene. I sent an email to this user on 16th March with an intervention request, then pinged this user on my talk page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matlin#An_e-mail_from_16th_march) on 14th April. Zero response.

Here's the e-mail: Please send the following message to user Ooligan, or react as administrator:

Applies to files: Helena Modrzejewska w roli Marii Stuart.jpg Helena Modrzejewska.jpg Anna z Chlapowskich Kazimierzowa Chlapowska.jpg Wladyslaw IV pozwala miastu Gniezno sprzedawac wino i inne likwory oraz sol.jpg

And edits like: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Helena_Modrzejewska.jpg&oldid=639559978

First: template:wrong licence doesn't automatically means, that file is not in PD. It means, for example, that there is licence template, that better describes file's legal status (for example: pd-old, pd-anon). CC0 is wrong, when file is in PD ex lege. So it's not "obviously defective tag". Only exeption for adding CC0 licence is when file contains 3D seal, see template:PD-art.

Second: template:PD-Poland does apply only to files PUBLISHED. In file description there aren't any information about publication date and medium.

There are many files uploaded by User:Kustoszka, that have the wrong licence. They should be cleaned.

End of the e-mail.

I wrote to this user as he is the person responsible for my block (which is nonrational in the scope of talk pages).

As is stated at Commons:Administrators : "Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends." I would add to this: even if some users are their foes or criticize them. Responses like: "please write to user x" or "intervene is not needed, you're wrong" are easy. 5.173.12.61 08:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Can I just suggest that you actually take a break and not edit here? You are blocked for three months and none of this will change anything in three months. I have no idea what you hope to accomplish here but you are better off finding something else to do for a few months and then looking at this again (if you care this much). The project will survive if no one bothers about this for a little while. Consider whether at the end of this day is this really the complaint you want to violate your block over and get banned here about? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Gwilliams124

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion

  • Users:
NikonZ7II (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
Livioandronico2013 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Strakhov (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. --A.Savin 13:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

User:CaramelOyster

User is uploading clipart with the same unhelpful source and author fields of "Google" and "idk" every time, ignoring talk page requests to specify the actual sources that they're taking these images from. If they're scrupulously public domain then the uploader isn't claiming this, only asserting CC-Attribution to "idk". --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, all obvious copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Lilqjq

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

HOGD08

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Gbawden: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Spam accounts

See also: Category:Sockpuppets of Et cima.
See also: Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Huihujifgtg7.

Hi. User:Huihujifgtg7, User:Yygutytgyt7, User:Ycyffyyfyf7, and User:Ytuyguyguytug7 have uploaded closely related, out-of-scope images (File:Snapshot_22-04-19_21-40-29.svg, File:Flag_of_330_(1921-1978).svg and File:Painteryer_of_330_(1921-1978).svg) for use in an unintelligible (Portuguese?) draft in the English Wikipedia. I'm not sure what the motivation behind this is, but it's some kind of sock puppet spam. Maybe block account creation for their IP address, if that's possible? TilmannR (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted the files and blocked the accounts for sockpuppetry/NOTHERE. (One that you listed, Ycyffyyfyf7, is not a registered account). Autoblock should hopefully prevent further accounts being created; if not, then a checkuser can take a look. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Ycyffyyfyf7 was the account that made the spam draft page. I guess Wikipedia accounts aren't necessarily Commons accounts. That page is already getting speedy deleted, so everything's fine. TilmannR (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, again. Ttygh7 (talk · contribs) has a similar name and a similar modus operandi: Uploading SVGs of YouTube screenshots (File:Flag of joler (mjq-now).svg, File:Flag of joler (llfr-mjq).svg) with descriptions and captions that seem to be generated via keyboard-mashing. TilmannR (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

There are also Uyhgiygutytuty7 (talk · contribs) and Hgyghuygyuh7 (talk · contribs), but their uploads are nonsense flags instead of screenshots (File:Flag of British tonga.svg, File:United Kingdom is countrtrer.svg). And Tuyers (talk · contribs) is interesting, because their upload is a similar nonsense flag (File:Huker flag.svg), but the user name, file description and caption are not keyboard-mashed. TilmannR (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Blocked all accounts, and filed a checkuser request. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, again again. Checkuser cases seem to have a very specific structure and I'm not quite sure where to add a new user to an existing request. Similar name & similar flag/screenshot uploads:

I am proud to present Category:Sockpuppets of Et cima with 38 blocked and tagged sockpuppets! Taivo (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, again3. There's another nonsense flag from Ututututru7 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . TilmannR (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Fitindia as the checkuser of Case/Huihujifgtg7. TilmannR (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@TilmannR Blocked and tagged - FitIndia Talk ✉ 20:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Adding User:Hukihgygu7 and User:Yhugyugtt7 both blocked and tagged - FitIndia Talk ✉ 21:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Pofka: nationalist POV-pushing

Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1462 within modern boundaries

A participant from Lithuania wants to attribute the legacy of the medieval Grand Duchy of Lithuania exclusively to the Republic of Lithuania: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68. How can, for example, be considered the coat of arms of the modern Republic of Lithuania drawing from 1507, or image from seal 1387? The territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is now part of Belarus, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia and Poland. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania existed from the 13th century to 1795. The official languages ​​were Ruthenian (Old Belarusian) and Polish (since 1586). Since 1795, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was annexed to the Russian Empire. The Russian Tsar bore the title of Grand Duke of Lithuania. The Republic of Lithuania was created in 1918 on a part of the territory of the Russian Empire, which is called Samogitia (the former Vilna province was controlled by Poland). In the same year, the Polish Republic, the Belarusian People's Republic and the Ukrainian People's Republic appeared. There are separate Wikidata articles: Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Republic of Lithuania, Pahonia, COA of the GDL and Coat of arms of Lithuania. This question has already discussed here and as a result it is written that the Republic of Lithuania is not the legal successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (User:Taivo). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Please cancel non-consensual edits and warn the participant about the inadmissibility of nationalist POV-pushing. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment by Pofka. User Лобачев Владимир is an aggressive follower of the pseudoscientific Litvinism theory, popular among Russian and Belarusian nationalists. Quote from his report: "The Republic of Lithuania was created in 1918 on a part of the territory of the Russian Empire, which is called Samogitia (the former Vilna province was controlled by Poland)". Check article Litvinism and you will quickly find that this user is repeating these pseudoscientific claims about Lithuania. Samogitia is only one of the regions of Lithuania. According to article Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the state was created in the ethnic Lithuanian region Aukštaitija. It was a Lithuanian Empire. So it is absolutely clear who is nationalist and violator of the Commons:Assume good faith here and it is funny that he is trying to accuse me about that.
The Coat of arms of Lithuania has many names: in the Lithuanian language it is called Waykimas (17th century term), Vytis (used since at least 19th century), in the Polish language it is called Pogonia, Pogoń and in the Belarusian and Russian languages it is called Погоня (romanized: Pahonia). According to the neutral point of view, there is no "correct" name, so naturally it is united under a single name "Coat of arms of Lithuania" (not Coat of arms of the Republic of Lithuania as user Лобачев Владимир is accussing). Name Lithuania encompases Duchy of Lithuania, Kingdom of Lithuania, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, interwar Republic of Lithuania, and restored post 1990 Republic of Lithuania (states created by the Lithuanian nation). There are no separate wiki data pages and categories for the coat of arms of the Kingdom of Poland, Kingdom of France, etc. Pay attention that in some cases I also inserted wiki data object Coat of arms of Poland (e.g. HERE).
Administrator Taivo clearly made incorrect statements that monarchs who did not spoke the Lithuanian language made the Grand Duchy of Lithuania a non-Lithuanian state. Pay attention that, for example, Stephen Báthory did not spoke nor Lithuanian, nor Polish, but because of that the Kingdom of Poland did not become non-Polish. There were many other examples about rulers from the Swedish Vasa dynasty, Henry III of France, etc. So Lithuania is not any different from Poland, France and other countries with long histories.
I'm not accusing Taivo of anything, but if support of the pseudoscientific Litvinism theory that Lithuania is not Lithuania will continue here I will be forced to raise this question about neutrality. Ping another administrators @Blackcat: and @GPSLeo: as this anti-Lithuanian situation may require intervention of other administrators.
By the way, pay attention that for a long time the Kings of England spoke French and French was the official language (SEE HERE and HERE). So the medieval England was not England? Grand Duchy of Lithuania had no official language and its Gediminid monarchs spoke Lithuanian. -- Pofka (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@Лобачев Владимир: it seems to me I've been clear: A/UP must not be the place to solve edit disputes and territorial debates. I invite some fellow admin to close this discussion because if there's anything to be discussed it must be in the RfD. Different points of view are not problematics, pushing agenda and misusing tools of service is. -- Blackcat 21:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@Blackcat: These are not different points of view. This clearly is an aggressive attack of a long-standing European country statehood, which is recognized by the entire world. See these statements by Лобачев Владимир: "Since 1795, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was annexed to the Russian Empire. The Russian Tsar bore the title of Grand Duke of Lithuania." Becoming legitimate ruler of another country by destroying its statehood and proclaiming itself as its ruler? No way. It is scientifically recognized that Lithuania (and Poland) ceased to exist in 1795 and was restored in 1918. There is no dispute. Seeing what a terrible tragedy is currently happening in Ukraine, such Russian imperialists should not be tolerated in the free-world projects such as Wikimedia as their only tasks here is to harm other countries identity and to spread Russian propaganda which tries to deny other countries, especially neighboring ones, statehood. Pay attention that user Лобачев Владимир requested to warn/punish me for adding wiki data object Coat of arms of Lithuania to files which depicts the Coat of arms of Lithuania. What an absurd. This is not Russian Empire, but a free-world project. -- Pofka (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I honestly do not understand the essence of the dispute. The only thing I see is the extremely aggressive behavior (WP:CIV) of a Profka member, who behaves extremely aggressively not only towards other Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons participants, but also expresses strong unethical behavior towards Wikipedia administrators (WP:NPA). This topic has already been raised more than once, and each time the administrators made the same decision on this issue, with which other members of our electronic community have always agreed. The difference between legal successors and cultural successors has already been explained, everyone agreed with those provisions. I see that the Profka participant is only manipulating facts, while political events are mixed in, which are not clear to this topic at all how the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania can be connected with the war in Ukraine? Who even argues that this is just some kind of horror and it is incomprehensible to the mind? What else is "Litvinism" or the Profka participant, being a Lithuanian nationalist himself, is openly trying to impose his opinion as the truth directly in the discussion (WP:NPOV), creating the feeling that the participant is openly conducting unoriginal research right here (WP:OR). --Johnny Moor (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Pofka and two other accounts (who can be their puppets, that should be checked technically, at least they have the same native language) is known for anti-Belarusian crusade in several language project. After Russian invasion in Ukraine this user starts to claim everywhere that Belarusians are Russians, which is exactly what Putin's propaganda does. The absurdity of their attempts to connect Belarusian view on the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania (so called "Litvinism") with Russian chauvinism (and as result the Russian invasion in Ukraine) is quite clear from the fact that first Belarusian military volunteer from en:Kastuś Kalinoŭski Battalion, who died in the fight with Russian forces, had the call sign "Litvin" ("Licvin", Belarusian "Ліцьвін") — be-tarask:Ільля «Ліцьвін» (Хрэнаў). Therefore, calling Belarusians (Litvins) the accomplices of the Rashists is a blatant lie. I can provide more detailed evidence of Pofka's disruptive activity, if required. And I absolutely agree that massive marking the coats of arms of the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania, which, unfortunately, existed only till 1795, as the coats of arms of the modern country appeared only in 1918, should be canceled as nationalist POV-pushing. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
What truly should be cancelled is your desire to falsify neighboring country history and desperate attempts to steal it with your colleague from Russia Лобачев Владимир (constant collaboration). Belarus had no statehood and no symbols before 1918. Period. You should finally learn to read a few sentences from the Encyclopedia Britannica about history of the national symbols of Belarus and how Lithuanians ruled Belarus. -- Pofka (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, I think admins should do something with panslavistic hysteria of two accounts - Kazimier Lachnovič and Лобачев Владимир. Belarus has nothing to do with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Belarus as nation and language appeared very lately - in 1918 and is still in forming as nation, still has huge problems with self-identification and statehood, speaking predominantly in Russian, not Lithuanian. Grand Duchy of Lithuania was rulled by catholic Lithuanians, not orthodox. Pretending to be Lithuanians will hot help. Lithuanians created Kingdom of Lithuania, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, so it is obvious that LITHUANIA = GRAND DUCHY OF LITHUNIA. You can read any encyclopedia in the world to understand this obvious fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania -- Ke an (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Just another proof of the well-known fact that Putin's paid trolls can be not only from Russia and not necessary Russian-speaking. To present modern Belarusians as a nation without history is exactly what Russian Soviet and modern Putin's propaganda does. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
This only confirms what I have said that Lithuanian nationalists are ready to throw everyone out of the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania except themselves, while hitting on everyone who does not agree with them and insulting entire nations. Trying to use the current political events only for their own purposes, the only ones against whom penalties should be applied are against Profki, who actively promotes the Lithuanian nationalist agenda ignoring everyone and everything, and Ke an, who panders to him by promoting Lithuanian nationalism, making Wikipedia a platform for promoting his ideas (WP:NOTADVOCACY). Some even try to make a scandal here, which is generally unacceptable (WP:NOTSCANDAL). Yes, as for even those links that you threw off. In fact, besides Britannica, there are still a lot of other resources that can both supplement and expand the information, at first, not only it. Then only the most general facts are indicated there, which do not go into details. You generally identify yourself with that Lithuania based only on the name, while not taking into account either the linguistic environment or the religious one. You and only you are falsifying history here, as even from your link, for example, even in the link that you threw off, it says that the Belarusian language began to form in the 13th century, but our esteemed Lithuanian accounts state that it appeared only in the 20th century, and also accuse Belarusians of the fact that most communicate in Russian, despite the fact that the situation is mostly similar in Ukraine. Which even shows that you don't check the links that you throw off yourself. Regarding behavior, this is in no way other than a manifestation of xenophobia. --Johnny Moor (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_97&oldid=655516500"