Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 98

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


Exif/metadata removal

Hello,

For privacy reasons I'd like the exif data on my 2 latest uploaded file removed. My reason is that these 2 are historic pictures which's authors died, so they are the authors and not me. I improved my wikicommons uploads licence tag skills so the last picture, so both are better tagged now, if it was your purpose to use exif data. Therefore I'd please like the exif/metadata attached to my 2 latest updates removed to not expose my priviate info. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvaBrandon2000 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@AvaBrandon2000 Just overwrite existing files with a version without metadata and ask for revdel of the first version (to me or just by answering here). Ruthven (msg) 19:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ruthven Hi ! And thanks a lot for your reply. I've overwritten the image with one without metadata. It's "Mouette's map of part of Morocco.jpg". Can you please delete for me the initial upload ? Thank you in advance and good day to you. AvaBrandon2000 — Preceding undated comment was added at 21:38, 4 May 2022‎ (UTC)
@AvaBrandon2000: Please see COM:SIGN and COM:TALK.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Marium Alberto

Marium Alberto is back at it. After being blocked for repeatedly replacing original pictures with cropped versions, now he is back at cropping images, uploading them as new ones, without any respect for the COM:De minimis, which obviously does not cover creative works in particular but rather, allows them when they're not the main subject. In this particular case, in addition to uploading several copyright violations (Such as coats of arms) he has been cropping portraits of some politicians out of larger pictures. For sure, these pictures are not under any free license and cannot be hosted here. I have tagged some as copyvios, but there is lots of work to be done. Obviously this user has not learned anything out of their three-month-block, from which they've been just released three days ago. --Bedivere (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

internet translation
Hello, I still don't understand the annoyance of the user @Bedivere who denounces me, I have tried to learn something more in these months of blockade, but for him everything I do is wrong, and therefore he denounces me to put an end to anything I try to do . A special case, the coat of arms, (eliminated as copyvio) was in svg format and not JPG or PNG, and puts the link as if there the rights were violated, it was another user, who made it svg, but from there, in order not to have an altercation with another user, I decided to put it separately (mine with a motto).
Now, speaking on the matter of cropping, they are cropping that I previously (before my crash) did but they were reversed, so since I didn't know the angles and stuff to do the same cropping with CropTool, I uploaded it as a new file, although obviously I tend to the same information as the original file, as well as their rights etc.
There were only a few special cases that I can accept [1] [2], but hence almost unfairly not having a link to see who I have stolen from or have done something wrong to and copyrighted, I have not seen. Marium Alberto (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Bedivere and Marium Alberto: ¿Pueden Uds. comunicar en español aquí? Are you able to communicate in Spanish here?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Si, por mi está bien. Un saludo Marium Alberto (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G. I can. But I don't find it to be productive, especially when there are so few Spanish-language admins around. Marium Alberto, as I said before, has continued to upload copyvios and will not acknowledge his faults, as he wrote above. Such a disrupting user needs to be stopped. Bedivere (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, he's uploading mostly crops of other Commons images. He has apparently ran across a few that were preexisting copyvios, and cropped a few in a way that might cause de minimis problems; so what? The first was a problem with Wikimedia Commons, and the second is a complex set of nation by nation rules that anybody could fall across. I don't see this as a disrupting user, rather someone doing a lot of not always perfect work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd agree with that definition of "someone doing a lot of not always perfect work" if only Marium Alberto could respond positively to our comments and, when unheard, warnings. They continously decide to ignore, instead. So that's where the "disrupting user" definition comes in. Bedivere (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

This account created on May 2 is uploading personal or randomly captured images attributing them to a non existant Freddy de Marchena IV, royal of Spain. The photos should be removed and the account warned or blocked. Pierre cb (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hirakel

  — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by CptViraj. Yann (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@CptViraj and Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Problem user

user:Gmyers92102’s uploads are all low quality porn. Not here to contribute to the project constructively. Please delete and block. Dronebogus (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Peyton dodson 5

  — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. All files deleted or nominated for deletion. Yann (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 20:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppets to block

Matafara (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log- Unrelated
Matejamandicbr (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log Stale
Матеја Мандић (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log Stale
MataBRO (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log Stale
Matatkm (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log Stale
Matamd.rs (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log – already blocked
Mtafata (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log – already blocked
--ToughDonk (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Fitindia as Checkuser who blocked Matamd.rs.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
As above most are stale and one is unrelated.--- FitIndia Talk 14:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@Fitindia: Isn't it obvious, even without checkuser right, that these are socks belonging to the same master? Another one: Мандић Матеја (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log. --ToughDonk (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@ToughDonk Have blocked User:Мандић Матеја with relation to User:Srbgraphics and the rest as mentioned earlier are Stale, one is unrelated. - FitIndia Talk 14:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

maque de respect ?

Bonjour cher administrateur, je découvre sur ma page [[3]] où Pueblo89 revendique de ne pas faire usage de politesse et respect. Accusation de mentir de voler (en gras). Que veut dire je vous mets en surveillance et de me donner des ordres ? Avant de réagir je souhaiterais un avis neutre. Je ne crois pas connaitre Pueblo89 ni avoir échangé avec Pueblo89. Cordialement Gérald Garitan (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Post-scriptum : recevoir de telles paroles de la part de quelqu'un qui écrit "m'emmerdent avec leur copyright ... en tt cas. Yaura pas de réclamation".[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jphwra (talk • contribs) 14:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Persecution

Please draw the attention of administrators to a number of users: User talk:Vovan bolvan; User talk:Похорони Волошина; User talk:Вовка х у є с о с. Downloading brutal files (‎File:ВОЛГУШ.jpg, File:Гоміки.jpg, File:Vovkas face.jpg, File:Посмішка амінь.jpg, File:Vova dead. Amen.jpg, File:VovkaRIP.jpg and File:Oholoshenya voloshine.jpg) that concern me and my family. Please permanently delete the mention of them and the files they downloaded. Thank you. --Jphwra (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

What action are you looking for here? Everything is deleted, everyone is blocked. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hunterstrawberry

Hunterstrawberry (talk · contribs) has been blocked for socking on enwiki. Looking at the user's contributions here, there are numerous obvious copyright violations and false license tags. I can nominate them all for deletion, but there might be a more efficient way. Agtx (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Agtx: Sorry, we don't have an equivalent to en:WP:CSD#G5.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
That's fine, I've nominated the ones I can. I would still suggest action against this user for plainly bad faith use of license tags. Agtx (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Strumpfhosen Elmar (talk · contribs)

Strumpfhosen Elmar’s uploads are almost nothing but unremarkable amateur pornography, with their weak justification being that “exhibitionistic fetishist” is a “sexual orientation”; the only one that’s not is a good faith, but unremarkable, COM:PENIS meant to illustrate phimosis. Additionally all but 3 of their numerous uploads have already been deleted per consensus. Is a mass delete and block in order? Dronebogus (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done No edit since 15 February 2022. Nothing to do. Yann (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Violations of copyright for User:Milena Lauschner

Violation of the name in Russia

User:Maksimsokolov has existed for page of Maksim Sokolov. Wrugtrab (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  •  Comment Both the first and last name seem to be rather common in Russia, the user calls themselves "Maksim Sokolov" outside of Wikimedia eg: [5]. It seems to me possible that this is a legitimate coincidental sharing of name. The user seems to have been a contributor in good standing on Commons since 2018. Has the user made any claim to be the Russian Minister of Transportation of the same name? Is there some problematic aspect which have have not understood? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@Infrogmation and Wrugtrab: Hello, I am Maksim Sokolov and this is my name. But I am not the transport minister of Russia. My name just happened to be the same as the minister's name. There are probably thousands other Maksim Sokolovs out there. Thank you beforehand for clearing this confusion. Maksim Sokolov (talk). 01:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Nothing to be done here. --A.Savin 01:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyright violations

User:DalerBoiYT keeps uploading screenshots from Better Call Saul, which are all copyright violations. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Brasil 2021 still uploading copyrighted material

Also, some of what @Brasil 2021 had uploaded previously hadn't been deleted. I'm not sure how much of a language barrier there is. I dream of horses (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: Tagging files such as File:Les Schtroumpfs.png as copyright violation is not appropriate. This is most probably OK. If there is doubt, a regular DR should be created. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@Yann I could see where that would be just inside threshold of originality. Sorry about that. I dream of horses (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

ToyotaSupra93

ToyotaSupra93 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

a recurrent vandal. can sysops please nuke all the created junk pages, such as Category:Historical of Philippine National Police? RZuo (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by Elcobbola, all files deleted by me. Yann (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks, but the 16 remaining created pages?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I didn't see these, but now ✓ Done Yann (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks again!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
i'd like to add one thing. the user might be trying to contribute, but s/he's not doing it right, which could be due to language barrier etc. i spot checked two of their uploads File:Lapu Lapu City Police Department.png File:Bohol Police Department.png. both new logos are legit cf. https://www.facebook.com/LapuLapuCityPoliceOffice https://www.facebook.com/bppo.pcr.5 . RZuo (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Jd savanyu

User: Jd savanyu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log
Reason for reporting: This new user upload hour long videos of nothing than noise and sexy photos. These out-of-scope videos should be deleted and the user warned or blocked. Pierre cb (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Warned, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Octave 444 claims of copyright ownership

Greetings, Common Admins, I sincerely apologise for my extended absence from all projects, but I'm otherwise occupied lately. I've come out of the shadows to bring a few concerns to you about dubious claims of copyright ownership.

  • The first user in question is User:Octave 444, who has uploaded 55 images to Commons, most all bearing their claim of "Own work" and even relicensed under Creative Commons terms. It is my understanding that this is against our strict copyright policies here; while this user may have photographed these original works, the creation of the photograph should not confer ownership of the work itself, nor permit relicensing, especially if the original work is more freely available, such as Public Domain. Therefore I submit all uploads from Octave 444 for scrutiny here according to our policies. Yes, I have notified the user that I was concerned a few weeks ago, but they have not edited here since then, and it's probably best if we intervened before another upload is labeled thus. I appreciate your attention and consideration! Elizium23 (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Mass copyvio

Һәҙиә (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log mass copyvio uploads after several warnings.--Xunks (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate close of DR by an admin

User:Yann closed this DR because an RfC is needed. However, Yann also participated and voted in the above DR. I honestly don't think this is an appropriate close because of possible conflict of interest, especially for an admin. Yann should be alert on possible COI behaviour. User:Basile Morin also raised an advice on Yann's close. Even the DR ended up "procedural keep", this should be done by others, not Yann — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.78.190.126 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Demon, get out of this sock! Yann (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
To quote the advice on closing discussions: "Procedural closes [...] are often performed by involved editors [...]. For example, duplicate discussions will normally be consolidated, one being closed with a reference to the other."
@Yann: I can't find the RfC that you mentioned in the DR. Optimally you should have provided a link.
I don't see any evidence for a COI. Note that a COI is about external relationships and explicitly "not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith." TilmannR (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@TilmannR: The RfC haven't start yet. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Fake Licenses by @Fatehiiiii:

this user upload file under fake iceanes/ websites that are not under create commons and their files like these:

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Warned. One more copyvio leads to a block. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Mass copyvio

Sonkirbyyy (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log mass copyvio uploads after several warnings.--Tychou12 (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Already blocked by EugeneZelenko. All files already deleted. Yann (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Massive wrong categorizations from 2016

Today I discovered the contributions of Koffermejia, and I discovered a massive problem with almost the categories created by this user from 2016 until today in Spanish language with a bad grammar, the user was reported in 2017 but his response was no succesfull. I sended a message to assist in correct all the categories but he prefered to disobey me ("It seems sad to me that you spend time writing this type of message without being clear about my motivations for contributing to this project..."). Because this situation is very serious, I have chosen to report it administratively. Taichi (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Obey? why I need to obey and do a lot of work? I like to upload images and videos from Mexico and create some categories in spanish to support it. This works in my comunity if someone like to translate and delete this help categories will be your work. I only want to continue with my work of adding material I hope someone find it a good way to contribute with wikipedia. But remember Taichi this is not my job, I apologize if you feel Im not doing a good categorization and I apologize if I sound rude but I cant help you doing changes because you want to follow the rules. Koffermejia (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Koffermejia, while Taichi could have worded that better, it is indeed Commons policy that Categories should be in English unless the name is a proper noun, part of taxonomy, etc. Please see Commons:Categories#Category_names for further guidance. I appreciate your desire to contribute to Commons (thank you!) but I would only ask that going forward you use English category names in compliance with policy. We do not use parallel category trees in different languages, as that just creates confusion and makes it more difficult for end-users to find what they are looking for. Huntster (t @ c) 21:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Commons is a multilingual project, but please note that according to our category policy, category names should generally be in English. This is to have a common base for all languages when it comes to navigating categories. So, on a general note, unless they include proper names, categories should not be created in Spanish — especially not if there is already a category with an English name that can be used. De728631 (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I will try to make the categories in English when possible. I apologize for any inconvenience. Koffermejia (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

GabrielDorneles

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

Hi, I blocked this user for the 4th time. Despite numerous warnings and explanations, and hours cleaning their 1000+ files uploaded with the wrong license(s), they still continues. There may be a language barrier, but there is more than that. I give up despite many uploaded images being useful. Help is needed to clean them. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Yann Are you sure it is not A3cb1's sock, given the kind of uploads? Have you asked for a CU? Ruthven (msg) 19:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done: 6 months block by Gbawden. Ruthven (msg) 08:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Botminh24

Uploads copyvio/DW without sources after last warning. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 15:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all copyvios already deleted. Yann (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

J-CREW

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

Repeated copyright infringement. As soon as a file is deleted, the same image is uploaded. J-CREW also ignore the warning on the talk page.--Krorokeroro (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

That is also a well-known brand. @Krorokeroro: I notified the user on their user talk page, as you are required to above.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files already deleted. Yann (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring and time-wasting from Vysotsky

See File:TT Assen Boet van Dulmen (no. 8) in actie, Bestanddeelnr 931-5674.jpg and File:BoetvanDulmen1981.jpg

These are two images (of a vast number) from Anefo, a Dutch photo agency, that have arrived here through bulk uploads from the Dutch National Archive. Sometimes, that bulk upload process goes wrong and we get wrong metadata, or the wrong image.

The TT Assen image is a description page that appears broadly correct for a motor-racing image, with a correct local filename and links to the Archive. However the image file is wrong: it's a photo of Queen Juliana instead. We have no sourcing for that image, thus no licence. We can't have that image here without. We might be able to find that image's source, chances are that it's already here somewhere, in which case it would be a duplicate and we don't need a second copy. Either way, it needs to go (it might possibly come back later, but to a different page).

The motorcycle image has a duplicate under another name, and less detailed metadata. As we have a huge number of these (the Archive organising project is massive), I favour keeping the motorcycle under the first name, so as to be consistent with the rest. I'm not a huge advocate for gratuitous consistency, but we're already there.

So I've uploaded the correct (motorcycle) image to the first page and tagged the second page as {{Badname}}, which will clean it all up (delete the Juliana photo too if anyone cares).

However Vysotsky uploaded the second image and has taken it personally that someone is changing their uploads. So they've twice now reverted all this, leaving the mess again. And the Queen of the Netherlands labelled as a motorbike. User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Boet_van_Dulmen They're not (thankfully) an admin, so they can't even sort it out themselves.

None of us need this sort of childish disruption.

@Mr.Nostalgic: as original uploader. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I like the ANEFO collection, and have written five articles about this collection and its usage in and outside Wikipedia, e.g. GLAM Newsletter April 2018, Informatieprofessional 2017 and a piece in The Signpost, October 2021. I know the collection by heart. The facts about these two photographs: one photo (Queen Juliana, link to original) was uploaded by User:Mr.Nostalgic, with incorrect metadata (he uploaded 350,000 photos, and his 5 laptops sometimes had a hick-up). The photo was not in use in Wikipedia. The other photo (Boet van Dulmen, link to original) was uploaded to Commons by me, and was in use in Wikipedia NL. User:Andy Dingley is incorrect in stating "We have no sourcing for that [Juliana] image, thus no licence". I found the source within five minutes, and changed the image on Commons back to the original, with correct metadata and license. User:Andy Dingley is also incorrect in stating that I "have twice reverted all this". I think his deduplication proposal is incorrect, as there was no duplicate. Vysotsky (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
Vysotsky is right about this. Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Right about what? That undiscussed repeated rollbacks are the way to proceed? That File:TT Assen Boet van Dulmen (no. 8) in actie, Bestanddeelnr 931-5674.jpg should be a redir to the photo of Juliana? That one image out of sequence has to be kept, just because it was their upload? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I guess you’re running out of arguments. You first said about the Juliana photograph: “We have no sourcing for that image, thus no licence”. I found the source and the license (CC-zero) within 5 minutes. Nothing wrong with the photograph, except for the metadata. Then you said the Juliana photo would probably be a duplicate anyway ("Either way, it needs to go"), which also proved untrue. Now you talk about “undiscussed repeated rollbacks”. Please take a look at your own talkpage, in which I explained the problem and announced I would go looking for the source (prior to my actions). You tried to remove an image without prior discussion, and the first thing I heard from you was on the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. That isn’t what I call cooperation. Furthermore: I don’t think I was the one who repeatedly rolled back, see the history of the Van Dulmen file https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:BoetvanDulmen1981.jpg&action=history Who is calling the kettle black? Vysotsky (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Marium Alberto

  — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 6 months, third block, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

HOGD08 again

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months, third block, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Mykola7 is blocking me because of political reasons

[12]

He thinks that everyone who says that Wikipedia is doing according to Declaration of Human Rights and Universal Code of Conduct[13] is Marat Gubaiev!

Dumpmenus (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dumpmenus, you are not active on this project. This is the wrong place/project for your complaint. --Túrelio (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Mykola7 has already blocked me on Ukrainian wiki and for unknown reasons I cannot edit Steward requests page.
So tell me please, what is the right place/project?
Dumpmenus (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

UPD

See this rhetoric: "Globally locked LTA Marat Gubeiev forgot to take pills." [14]

Is it normal?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumpmenus (talk • contribs) 20:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Túrelio: , I'm a CU from UkWiki, it's a globally blocked user who has been harassing users here for years, adding this stupidity wherever possible. I blocked him there, he came here. Please block him here too, because he won't say anything sensible. --Mykola7 (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
"""he won't say anything sensible.""" Like "Wikipedia is doing according to Declaration of Human Rights and Universal Code of Conduct"? Dumpmenus (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what is wrong with User:Mykola7 but tell me please, what is the real reason for blocking me! Dumpmenus (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
OMG, @Ahonc: , приберіть його, будь ласка. --Mykola7 (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mykola7: я наразі не бачу, за що блокувати користувача тут. Надішліть мені вікіпоштою докази.--Anatoliy (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
"""he won't say anything sensible.""" By the way, I created this page Russians want to remove: [15] Dumpmenus (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I blocked the user, they are clearly only here for harassment, not to contribute to Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ahonc: , вже заблокували, це ж Марат Губаєв знову свою маячню пише всюди де можна, я його заблокував у нас, він прийшов сюди. Thanks Ymblanter. --Mykola7 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
На жаль (а може і на щастя), я не знаю всіх глобальних LTA-користувачів. :) --Anatoliy (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

GuyPiggys

User: GuyPiggys (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log
Reason for reporting: This new user seems strange : put strange comments into other users discussion page, including false claims of blockage, uploads out-of-scope and bad quality photos. Could an administrator evaluate if a warning or a blockage is needed. Pierre cb (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed - serial vandal/sockpuppeteer that appears to have come here after getting blocked on enwiki. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Porn user

User:Uomobulges18241 exclusively uploads amateur porn with minimal educational use, and their name is probably a policy violation for including “bulges” in a clearly sexual context. Dronebogus (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure about this one, Some of them are high quality, we don't censor Commons. Gbawden (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, they are quite repetitive. I would keep a couple of photos, and delete the rest as "almost duplicate" (the colour balance isn't right either). Ruthven (msg) 18:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Arbalete

User: Arbalete (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log
Reason for reporting: Edit-warring and overcategorization, he simply won't stop to discuss if he think he's right, no matter if his error is evident or there is no consensus for his edits. I see discussing about the topic is a waste of time. Phyrexian ɸ 14:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to report the category I'm talking about: Category talk:Morosolo-Casciago train station, but also here for edit-war. --Phyrexian ɸ 14:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I also report an abuse by Arbalete as a file mover here, not providing a valid reason for renaming the file according to COM:FNC, and of course again edit-warring. This renaming seems to me to be an obvious trolling, but I see in his renaming log that moving files without a valid reason is an habit. --Phyrexian ɸ 18:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Problem with Alsace1944 - copyvios

Alsace1944 (talk · contribs) uploaded File:Plaque de Grand Croix de la Légion d'Honneur.png, which was a copyvio of https://www.monnaiedeparis.fr/en/legion-d-honneur-grand-croix-plaque . He was warned about copyright violations on his talk page.

After its deletion, he reuploaded File:Plaque de Grand Croix de la Légion d'Honneur.png. Could you block him for reuploading copyvio images?

Yours, Le Petit Chat (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted or nominated for deletion. Yann (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: I would like to reopen that request. Alsace1944 (talk · contribs) has reuploaded some deleted files, with the correct attribution, but still without permission. Thanks, Le Petit Chat (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week, all new files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Moge-Kov (talk · contribs) deserves at least a warning for uploading several copyvios after yesterday's deletion. --Xunks (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Xunks: I warned them and notified them of this section for you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


uploading files by fake licenses even by getting waring

Fatehiiiii (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Fatehiiiii even by getting warning still uploading file with fake license

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] I notified them of this section for you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked. Obvious copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

User:鐵路1

This user was edit-waring. Because he single-handedly invented new words for "train", no further explanation. And then I started a new discussion here. But I waited two weeks with no responses, so I made the edit. Unexpectedly, he began an edit war in order to stop his category being deleted. I am not interested in edit waring on the image page, so I would prefer for someone to intervene to stop his bad actions.--Kai3952 (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a reply below, and the news source is attached. Because of the busy work recently, I have been unable to reply. I just created a relevant explanation in the Wiktionary Dictionary, so I restored it (Google Translate) 🚊鐵路Railway Talk 06:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Please will an admin have a chat with this reasonably prodigious uploader with a view to educating them on files that are and files that are not acceptable?

I have tried gentle advice, but, since they have not engaged with those pieces of advice, I fear I am not getting through. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 20:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The behaviour is continuing after a formal warning by Yann on their talk page. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 07:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked Iffybogus for a week. Taivo (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I am grateful, Taivo. I am trying on en WP on their talk page to direct them to COM:VRT. They have not yet shown a willingness to engage with the problems. They state that they have approval from the family of the draft they are creating there to upload the files and I have tried to make them understand that evidence is required. They show no willingness to engage here, either. A week's slap on the wrist should be attention getting. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 07:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Chronic problems with User:Matsievsky

I reported User:Matsievsky a while back for making insults, trying to steamroll deletion nominations of their files, and intentionally miss characterizing the guidelines. Unfortunately, no action was taken at the time and now he's back to doing the same things again. To give a few examples,

1. He reverted my speedy deletion nominations of both this and this file and converted them into deletion discussions. Which clearly goes against the guideline that users shouldn't remove speedy deletion nominations from files they have uploaded themselves.

2. He posted the same dishonest boilerplate keep message into this and this nomination. As well as others.

3. In this nomination he lied and said the image is quite normally visible when it clearly isn't.

4. He's repeatedly and intentionally miss-represented COM:Dupe as saying that duplicate files shouldn't be nominated for deletion when that's clearly not what it says.

5. He's repeatedly cited a discussion that only had like 4 participants, Discussion about JPEG and PNG format files in Russian., as a reason why duplicate files should never be deleted and treats the discussion as authoritative when it clearly isn't.

I've discussed his behavior with him multiple times, but he refuses to get the point or otherwise stop the disruptive and dishonest behavior. So I think an admin needs to step in and deal with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm tired of the user's Adamant1 behavior. So I think an admin needs to step in and deal with it. Matsievsky (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@Adamant1, just to have the facts correctly: File:The Soviet Union 1978 Illustrated stamped envelope Lapkin 78-521(13082)face(Ilya Katunin).jpg was converted from speedy to regular DR by me, not by Matsievsky, and this was fully compliant to our policy Commons:Deletion policy#Duplicates. --Túrelio (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry. I must have linked to the wrong file. There were several that he did it with regardless. Thanks for the clarification though. I updated the link. Hopefully it's correct now. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment At a minimum he should at least receive a warning not to lie in deletion requests or remove speedy deletions on files he's uploaded anymore. Expecting him to abide by a basic level of honesty when he votes and to not miss-represent things is an extremely low bar that everyone should be following. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Barkave Balusamy

User: Barkave Balusamy (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log
Reason for reporting: This user uploads series of images with all the same categories although they are should have each different categories. Furthermore, most of the time, the categories used are either very general or unrelated. I did warned this new user, and he acknowledge, but continued to do the same. An administrator should warn him more strongly. Pierre cb (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Guccee

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

Please stop a member who invents historical coats of arms, uploads them to Wikimedia Commons, and then publishes them in articles and uploads them to Wikidata as real. Here are examples of fictional coats of arms.

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

1. The graphics were created on the basis of the coat of arms on the painting by anonymous painter, entitled Portrait of Stephen Bathory in coronation robes, created while Stefan Batory was still alive. This painting is a good historical source, it can be clearly stated that the coat of arms on it was the real coat of arms of king Stefan. However, the heraldic cloak is an imaginary addition, not reflected in historical sources, it was added by the author to emphasize the nobility of the coat of arms itself.
  • 2. The graphics were created on the basis of the coat of arms on the painting by Martin Kober, entitled A portrait of Queen Anna Jagiellon as a widow, created while still alive or shortly after the death of Anna Jagiellon itself. This painting is a good historical source, it can be clearly stated that the coat of arms on it was the real coat of arms of Queen Anne. However, the heraldic cloak is an imaginary addition, not reflected in historical sources, it was added by the author to emphasize the nobility of the coat of arms itself.
  • 3. No image of the Giedymin coat of arms has survived to the present day. However, the description of the image of one of his seals from 1323 is known. The seal featured an engraved man with long hair sitting on a throne, holding a crown in his right hand and a scepter in his left hand. The vectorized coat of arms was created based on the description of the image from the seal. The actual colors are unknown, they were added according to the author's own concept. In order to present the image of Gediminas coat of arms as faithfully as possible, the author used images from the seals of Gediminas' grandchildren; Witold Kiejstutowicz and Zygmunt Kiejstutowicz. More here: [18]
  • Seal of Witold Kiejstutowicz
    Seal of Witold Kiejstutowicz
  • Seal of Zygmunt Kiejstutowicz
    Seal of Zygmunt Kiejstutowicz
  • 4. Vectorized seal of Olgierd
  • Guccee (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

    User removes nominations and does not participate in discussions:
     Comment This is following the conflict about Lithuania history. Yann (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

    User:Ham II

    User:Ham II uploads a lot of images from Flickr but only categorizes them as "Italy". That means a lot of work for other users. --Xocolatl (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

    Blocked for 2 hours. Hopefully the message will get through. Yann (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Xocolatl and Yann: Sorry about this. The photos are from a Flickr album of 4,562 photos titled simply 'Italia' – they're not in any albums that are smaller or more narrowly defined than that. I've been uploading them en masse to Category:Italy and, on previous days this week, have then been moving them into more precise categories for the appropriate cities. After that the plan is that I will move them to more precise categories still, though other users are beating me to it for some photos as the upload itself is taking a long time. Today I've taken a different tack in that I've been uploading the files to Category:Italy in the background while working on something else, but with the intention of moving them out of that category later in the day. I didn't intend to leave this work to other users, and would be avoiding uploading to the Italy category altogether if the photos weren't only in one very broadly defined album. 12:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ham II (talk • contribs)
    If that's what you intend to do, it's fine. Unfortunately, there are users who don't care about such things and only spam... --Xocolatl (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Ham II: sometimes it's better to upload into a personal category that is specifically there for you to sort through and categorize. - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

    RSSKRJ

      — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

     Not done. You warned the user, all uploads are deleted. At moment that's enough. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

    Debjyoti Gorai

    • Debjyoti Gorai (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log The user is only engaged in uploading copyright images from government websites and social media sites and claims it to be free. The user does not listen to advice and argue with wrong facts . Please stop them from further mis-using commons platform for violations. Run n Fly (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
      In their talk page they have replied several times that Whoever you are don't know anything about copyrighted laws in India. India's laws are not same that of western countries. I am well aware which are copyrighted and which are not. It's a selective targeting with western copyrighted laws on India. The images which i have taken from twitter are in public domain given by the respective govt agencies. No citations needed in order to prove that the image is free to use. This is wrong and should be stopped. Run n Fly (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    A lot of off-topic noise
    Selective targeting of an Indian editor is an violation. Thousands of Indian editors have been doing this for years. Copyrighted laws are different in India. That's why I am taking some steps against Wikipedia organisation for selective and sudden targeting and their operations in India. Debjyoti Gorai (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Debjyoti Gorai: What kind of steps?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    You pick up a fight with the wrong org. They did the same with me by banning me. I filed a case against Wikipedia almost for the same thing. But the court said it's impossible to fight with a foreign organisation. You are right there are thousands of Indians who do this and don't get any warning but there are also there who get a warning and get banned for almost the same thing. You know many Indian Wikipedia articles have become highly one-sided and politicized. This resulted in hundreds of defamation cases. There was a case in particular where a state govt forced Wikipedia to remove some articles based on a defamation case. Initially, Wikipedia refused to mention so-called facts based on 'western' sources, 'western' copyrighted laws etc. Wikipedia has deteriorated over the last few years even the scientific articles. So I request you don't file any case since you will be the one to lose money. But don't worry because the way Wikipedia is going in the recent future the Government of India, and higher courts get involved and punish Wikipedia with fines or a ban. Do one thing boycott editing in Wikipedia as many others have done so moreover, it is highly unreliable for any studies as stated by schools, colleges, institutions etc. SinhaAbhinandan (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I heard about the case where a state government got involved but i don't remember it too. Thanks for the suggestion regarding filing a case. As you said I will not be filing any case as money will wasted. I didn't know that hundreds of defamation of cases was filed. It's just amazing how an Open Source organisation like Wikipedia can do and behave like this. What to say about 'Western' open source organisation? They prefer to those who gives loyalty to western ideas. It will be fun to watch when Government of India gets involved. Twitter behaved the same way but when Government of India got involved it was fun to watch Twitter succumb to the Indian state even though twitter is not similar to Wikipedia. As you suggested from now on i will boycott all types of editing on Wikipedia and will wait for that day when Wikipedia finally understands and learns. Debjyoti Gorai (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Debjyoti Gorai and SinhaAbhinandan: We follow the laws specified by COM:India. Please also be aware of en:WP:NLT.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    I can make a good joke "Western 1st world open-source organisation is following copyright laws, rules, regulations, ordinances of 3rd world countries like India, Bangladesh etc". Here is another "legal threat" from a Bangladeshi editor. @Debjyoti Gorai and @SinhaAbhinandan now you both imagine the things we as South Asians have to face who have a critical opinion of Western ideas. My country Bangladesh can't even fight like your country against injustice. I just noticed now that the image of the chief minister of Tripura Manik Saha is missing again. I was searching about it because Tripura is very close to Brahmanbaria and was checking the recent political developments in Tripura. Wikipedia must be banned in South Asian countries and we must together come up with an alternate and homegrown service. BanglaBabuTeeth (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    Could you please cite and link the laws and/or regulations you are referring to? If you could prove that these images published by an authority are public domain of free licensed we would immediately restore them. --GPSLeo (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    Copyright policy of Govt portal of Tripura state -> https://tripura.gov.in/sitecopyright. Copyright policy of Govt portal of Uttarkhand state -> https://uk.gov.in/pages/display/982-copyright-policy. Vrindavan Chandrodaya Mandir -> https://www.vcm.org.in/terms-conditions. Kanpur metro of UPMRC -> https://www.lmrcl.com/terms-of-use. For KV IIT Kharagpur main building.jpg image it's my own image which I have taken on my farewell/graduation day on 22nd February, 2019 as I studied there. I am stating the above policies because I took the images from government websites and other sites and I will be stating more. It will take time. For each image, I will be stating each source's copyright policy that's why. Debjyoti Gorai (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    I am not sure if the licenses of the first two sites are really allowing derivative works what is required to be accepted on Commons. The VCM license is definitely not acceptable.
    We are the owner or the licensee of all intellectual property in our site, and of the material published on our site. Those works are protected by copyright laws and treaties around the world. All such rights are reserved. We authorize you to view and download the materials at this site only for your personal, non-commercial use. You may draw the attention of others to the material posted on our site. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    I think the word 'reproduce' accounts for derivative works. If this doesn't account for that then thousands of other images will also need to be removed/pulled/deleted. What about the Kanpur metro policy? I uploaded the Kanpur Metro image way back in December. It was removed just now with the rest of the other images even my own taken image. Here, I give an example 'The uploader does not really create File:Maha_Mumbai_Metro.png' image. The original owner is MMMOCL. See this image is there without any problem. Cropping or editing will not change an image's copyright policy right? If you like I can list you like this thousand of images you which are even present in protected pages too. That's why I was telling multiple times and in anger too that in India copyright laws are highly relaxed and are hardly enforced. This is true for all South Asian countries. The admin or high-level Indian editors needs to understand too that if they want a built Wikipedia for the larger Indian public interest they need relaxed rules. If this was true then Indian Wikipedia pages would have lot more pictures. And those admins/editors must admit or accept that ground-level editors must be taken into consideration. These editors do lack ideas on copyright laws but they know more information which is more true than high-level editors get. It happens more with history which is mostly dictated by one-sided rather than being completely neutral. Debjyoti Gorai (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Debjyoti Gorai: How did you learn so much about Indian government (and all South Asian) copyrights?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    I work as an intern for Department of Information & Cultural Affairs of Govt of West Bengal. I generally work in public information release from the government. Debjyoti Gorai (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

    (commenting as I was pinged: 1, 2, 3, 4) @Debjyoti Gorai: Hi.

    • File:Kanpur Metro OrangeTrain.jpg → The UPMRCL website says "The resource materials produced in this Website are the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Materials may be downloaded and used with attribution", I think this applies to resources part only.
    • File:MCD Logo New.png → The MCD website says "Page or information of this website can be reproduced without permission of competent authority. The contents of this website are updated and owned by Municipal Corporation of Delhi".
    • AFAIU Files where source allowed usage and reproduction but restricted usage for "derogatory manner or in a misleading context" aren't acceptable on Commons, see COM:L. Commons is built with the goal for providing free and useful files which can be used for any purpose without any restriction.

    Haven't taken look at your other uploads yet. Seeing that your previous uploads were deleted for copyright violations, it was natural for someone to assume that the IITKGP image is also a copyright violation, you can participate in the discussion and prove your ownership. Talking about your "relaxed rules" comment, it's not possible for a media database like Commons to ignore the copyright rules even if they are hardly enforced, Commons can get into trouble for it, see COM:PCP. We have fair use uploads enabled for some wikis such as English Wikipedia, they keep the files locally. I request you to calm down, I understand that it might be annoying for you that your uploads were deleted but you also have to understand that we all (including admins) are volunteers here like you, using phrases such as "shame on you" aren't helpful. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

    The person who deleted IITKGP image didn't give any chance to explain it and went on removing it. What I found is there is no accountability of such high-level editors who are mostly foreigners. Why come after 3 years to delete it. If that's the case then it should apply to others as well. There are thousands of images which haven't been taken down. I can give you hundreds/thousands of images that are like that but are staying for years. What I understand that if I didn't have uploaded the portraits then the IITKGP, Kanpur Metro image, and Logo of Pune Metro would have remained there. I uploaded the Kanpur Metro image way back in December and it wasn't taken down in months. Similarly the IITKGP image years ago. They were only deleted after I uploaded some official portraits of CMs. Now the phrase "derogatory manner or in a misleading context" applies to all govt official portraits taken from govt run sites. All such websites have such things. For example, see the portrait of the Indian Prime Minister https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Official_Photograph_of_Prime_Minister_Narendra_Modi_Potrait.png it uses the OGD license but the website prom where is it taken that is https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/image-gallery/ have the website policy here https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/website-policies/ having mentioned the term "not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context". OGD license is for only media taken from OGD platforms. See the objectivity of the license here www.meity.gov.in/open-data Debjyoti Gorai (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    IITKGP image isn't deleted yet, it is under discussion. There is no fixed time limit for deletion, generally old uploads go through deletion discussion unless the case is very obvious, your new uploads attracted other's attention towards your upload history. And yes, the other files you mentioned might also have the restrictions but it gets overwritten by {{GODL-India}}, but the scope of GODL has been always unclear, AFAIR many users have sent emails to the Government of India for clarification but no reply have been recieved. There is no clear indication that state governments' works are also covered under GODL, due to this confusion and uncertainty GODL license reviewing have gotten mostly limited to PIB and NIC (partially) websites in practice, see Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India, as of writing this message there are around 12K GODL files pending license review, and that includes PM's potrait. There have been many discussions regarding GODL, even for stop accepting it. Commons is not perfectly consistent. -- CptViraj (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

    Personal attack here. Yann (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

    I concur that it was a personal attack, and I applaud Yann for his restraint in bringing it here rather than blocking immediately, given that it was directed at him.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed. My humble opinion on the new AN report. -- CptViraj (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
    Disturbing that it is considered an personal attack in Modern English. I think I responded appropriately to the action committed by @Yann. The editor named @Yann didn't give me time to explain for that image and the editor deleted my own personal image. The editor created his own opinion about that image and applied that opinion to it. That made the editor responsible for the action taken on that image. Rules should be applicable to all with equal effect. Debjyoti Gorai (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done I blocked Debjyoti Gorai for 2 weeks for persistent personal attacks. See above. Yann (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

    <facepalm>... @Yann: Good block, Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

    Elcobbola

    User falsely accuses me of copyright violation and lock evasion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:20170315 003801 Kristina Pimenova 576x768.jpg, attempts to introduce issues from other projects and lets that guide their perception, and displays an aggressive attitude towards me. They removed my warnings (which by itself is fine, they must have read them) but doesn't withdraw anything. Desired outcome:

    • a sincere apology from this user;
    • retraction of their accusations;
    • speedy close as keep of the frivolous deletion request that they support.

    Thanks, Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

    My comments speak for themselves. This is shameless harassment and trolling (of which user is so very fond--e.g., [19][20]) and I will not entertain it with further response. Эlcobbola talk 11:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    FYI, these are my local accounts renamed when I quit contributing to Wikipedia so many years ago exactly because of users like you. I did not edit with the accounts renamed, the passwords were scrambled. The introduction of global accounts subsequently automatically recreated an account in my name on all the projects. I have no other Wikimedia accounts. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    • This is a pretty clear set of bad faith actions by Эlcobbola, and the DR has already been clearly rejected as invalid. This is really unimpressive behaviour.
    For backstory, see User_talk:Arielraiponce#Deleted content (of course there was backstory, there's always a backstory)
    Guido has a block / socking history on Wikipedias [21]. They are not, and (AFAIK) have never been, blocked on Commons. So any such history is irrelevant here. It does not matter. It does not change anything about a DR in which they are involved. Эlcobbola should know this, and should know not to use that as reasoning in a DR.
    A statement (from the DR), "It is, for example, also factual that you are a demonstrable liar currently evading at least five global locks" is not 'factual' in any way that I can see. There is no global lock on Guido's account. There is no block on Guido's account at Commons. They are therefore acting to edit here entirely within our rules. Nor does a global lock invalidate older uploads. @Ruslik0: might like to comment as to just what is locked and what ought to be.
    Also, most non-admins would be getting blocked or IBANned for statements (false or not!) like "you are a demonstrable liar".
    If Guido is such a heinous editor that they need to have all accounts globally locked, then ask the bureaucrats that. It's not a subject for a DR on Commons. Until such time as they are globally locked, then don't talk about them as if they are!
    We've also seen the regular nonsense about "other photos of the subject exist on Twitter!" getting dragged up. But this isn't the same photo, so it wasn't sourced from Twitter, was it? (Why would anyone, especially an admin, try to base a DR on that?) Also it's openly accepted here that these photos have much the same commercial background as the Twitter ones did:– the only issue is whether Guido was involved in that commercial project and is thus in a position to license them for here (which I'm happy to accept).
    The DR has a valid question about it as to the ownership of the IP rights on the photo, and whether those have been correctly licensed by someone (Guido) in a position to do so. That's the only valid question here. Personally I think they probably have been, but that OTRS would make that situation clearer (I think Guido could do this if acting in their "commercial" role for involvement in a film project, so they should make that plain; their regular "personal" role on Commons wouldn't be enough) Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

    Martin wolf

    Martin wolf (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log uploaded a bunch of paintings from František Antonín Jelínek (1890-1977), claiming that they are under CC-BY-SA without providing any proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to the license. He claimed on my talk page that he owns the copyright but that he don't want to "assign meaningless work" by providing proof, and he since keeps removing the "missing evidence of permission" tags without providing evidence. Could an admin take a look? Thanks --Andel (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done Warned them. --A.Savin 20:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

    User:Rory trains

    After receiving copyvio warning, this user didn't stop posting the same copyvio photo. (See File:Suica commuter pass 2022.01.28.jpg)

    Additionally, this user may have copyvio sock, Rory train (talk · contribs). Sock posted File:Sakura-Tsuchiura-IC-01.jpg (Log) and this user used in jawp.(ja:Special:Diff/89049041) --Netora (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done I blocked Rory trains indef. as sock, and Rory train for a week for uploading copyvios after warning. Yann (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

    Mottazabdulrahman

    @Mottazabdulrahman has uploaded multiple copyright violating photos and one permission-less photo of himself. Of course, he has an autobiographical draft on the English Wikipedia. I dream of horses (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

    What makes you think that these images violate copyright? Whose copyright? Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    All of his 3 deleted uploads, which he claimed as own work (largely impossible per circumstances) and to show himself, had been prepublished in newspapers 5 years ago. The source for 2 of them credits the image to "UAECF". That's enough evidence to doubt the own-work-claim and to justify the necessity of a formal permission. --Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. I warned the user. Copyvios are mostly deleted. They were found in Internet before upload into Commons. Taivo (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    FYI, the UAECF is the United Arab Emirates Chess Federation. Predating as such means exactly nothing. A photographer can decide to allow their images to be used in press coverage first and on Wikipedia later. So please follow due process, restore the images and then start a proper DR if you must. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    I can't point to the letter of the law, but the practice I've seen is that if it was published first, it has to have VTRS. If our version was first, the other versions could be copies of it, but if the other versions were first, then our version could be a copy of it, and since they were published, the assumption is that they are more likely to be a user uploading pirate copies than a professional giving away what they once sold.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
    Not with the meta data present, and given their official capacity. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

    Excessive copyright violation

    User Special:Contributions/Df457bb continues uploading copyrighted images, despite numerous warnings. Asking for admin actions.--Renvoy (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done 3 days block. Ruthven (msg) 16:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    uploading files by fake licenses even by getting waring and one week blocking

    Fatehiiiii (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) even by getting warning and one week blocking still uploading file with fake license

    [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done Blocked for a month (2nd block). Yann (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    Repeated disruption by User:Cesar David MP

    This user has had many warnings about copyright violations, and was given a final warning in April. They have persisted without engaging with warnings, including re-uploading one of their uploads immediately after it was deleted (File:Emblem_of_the_Islamic_Emirate_of_Afghanistan(simplified).svg reuploaded as File:Emblem_of_the_Islamic_Emirate_of_Afghanistan(simplified).png), and removing deletion templates from two of their uploads today [23], [24]. A block is needed to prevent further disruption. ― Tartan357 Talk 21:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    They have had a block and sufficient warnings, it is time for more action.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

    Porn user

    user:Cczx12345 is spamming non-educational dick pics with no constructive contributions whatsoever. Their non-upload contribs seem like trolling/nonsense. Probably needs blocking. Dronebogus (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done blocked and nuked. Clearly NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

    Purani Raghavan

    Purani Raghavan (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log

    This new user do mass uploads with strange names, no description related to the photos, and tons of superfluous categories and structure data. I did clean a bit the categories but I am not sure his uploads are really his as there are no META on them. Could an administrator keep an eye on this user and check if his uploads are in scope of Commons.

    Pierre cb (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

    User:Blue water world, yay!

    User:Blue water world, yay! was created by the user with a sockpuppet tag, and edits are clear vandalism.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

    Looks like they're now blocked by Elcobbola. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

    Belehrungen wegen angeblich falscher Scopes

    Guten Morgen,

    ich wäre Ihnen dankbar, wenn Sie die in Mobbing gegen mich ausartenden Belehrungen bei Valued Images unterbinden könnten.

    Vier User haben sich seit Kurzem darauf eingestellt, von mir präsentierte Fotos – zum Teil historische Motorsportfotos – für wertlos zu erklären. Begründung ist oft die angeblich mangelhafte oder fehlerhafte Beschreibung (Scope) oder es wird gefragt, warum ich glaube, das jeweilige Bild sei das wertvollste. Siehe zum Beispiel Hans Heyer 1973. Andere Beispiele sind Fotos aus dem Audi Forum. In wieder anderen Fällen wie in [25] ist es angeblich falsch, den Namen der Veranstaltung oder des Museums zu nennen. Das Bild eines Schulhauses soll wertlos sein, weil das Gebäude in einer zu kleinen Stadt steht: [26] Ein weiteres Argument ist, dass von einem Gegenstand nur ein einziges Bild wertvoll sein könne und nicht Aufnahmen aus verschiedenen Perspektiven. Neuestes Beispiel für Ablehnung ist der angeblich falsche Scope zu einer NSU Lambretta. Es ist eins von zwei Bildern einer NSU Lambretta in den Commons; aber wertlos, weil einem Benutzer der Scope nicht gefällt.

    Antworte ich auf die haltlosen Argumente, wird mir mitunter Beleidigung vorgeworfen. Damit ich nicht falsch verstanden werde: Ich lebe nicht von positiven Bewertungen bei VI, genau wie Tausende andere, die ihre Fotos zwar in die Commons hochladen, aber nicht zur Beurteilung bei VI oder QI vorstellen. Trotzdem sollte es in einem Gemeinschaftsprojekt so etwas wie das Mobbing seitens Charlesjsharp, GRDN711, Ikan Kekek oder Elekhh nicht geben.

    Freundliche Grüße
    Lothar Spurzem — Preceding undated comment was added at 08:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

    Da du das ja auch noch einmal auf meiner Diskussionsseite in de: angesprochen hast, habe ich dir dort geantwortet. Ich denke, das ganze ist vor allem ein sprachliches Missverständnis.
    Vielleicht mögen dir aber ja auch noch einmal andere deutschsprachige Admins (Ich pinge mal an: @Krd, AFBorchert, JuTa, Túrelio, and Leyo: ) eine Einschätzung geben.
    Since you also brought this up on my talk page in de:, I answered you there. I think the whole thing is mainly a language misunderstanding.
    But maybe some other German-speaking admins (ping to @Krd, AFBorchert, JuTa, Túrelio, and Leyo: ) might give you their assessment. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    Wie an anderer Stelle schon gesagt, hat sich die Zusammenarbeit mit Ikan Kekek erfreulicherweise normalisiert. Ich hoffe, dass es so bleibt. -- Spurzem (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    Gut, hoffen wir's. --Leyo 13:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    Ich bin da skeptisch - so lange dieses Missverständnis bezüglich des Scopes besteht, wird es immer wieder Konflikte geben. @Lothar: Es wäre schon viel gewonnen, wenn du unter "scope" eine Kategorie eintragen würdest und nicht die Bildbeschreibung. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Reinhard Kraasch: Entgegen meiner Hoffnung wird es seitens der genannten Leute immer Beanstandungen an meinen Scopes geben. Mal ist die Beschreibung zu umfangreich, mal ist sie zu kurz, nötigenfalls ist der abgebildete Gegenstand zu wenig bekannt. Irgendeinen Grund die Fotos für wertlos zu erklären wird es insbesondere für zwei der Genannten immer geben. Im Übrigen wüsste ich keinen einzigen Fall, in dem ich vergessen hätte, die Kategorie anzugeben. Hast Du ein Beispiel dafür? Gruß -- Spurzem (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    Hallo Lothar, du gibst wohl auch eine Kategorie an, aber dein "scope" ist praktisch immer eine Bildbeschreibung genau dieses Bildes. Nehmen wir nur einmal File:Heyer, Hans - Ford Capri - 08.07.1973.jpg - da hast du als "scope" angegeben: "Hans Heyer in Ford Capri on Nürburgring" (und nicht "Hans Heyer") - ich hab es jetzt nicht überprüft, aber vermutlich gibt es nur ein, zwei Bilder in Commons, die die Bedingung "Hans Heyer in einem Ford Capri auf dem Nürburgring" erfüllen. Dann zu sagen: "Meines ist das beste" ist doch trivial. Das gleiche bei File:NSU Lambretta, 149 cm³, 6 PS, Bj. 1955 (Sp).JPG - in der Kategorie sind gerade mal zwei Bilder - das ist in der Tat als Bereich viel zu eng. Eigentlich ist doch unter Commons:Bereiche wertvoller Bilder ziemlich genau erklärt, wie eng oder weit ein Bereich sein soll. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    Hallo Reinhard, ich bin möglicherweise zu dumm, um das Spiel mit den Scopes zu durchschauen. Anfangs glaubte ich verstanden zu haben, es solle nicht nur eine Kategorie genannt, sondern ein Bild möglichst so beschrieben werden, dass auch ein zweites oder drittes von ein und demselben Objekt, aber aus anderer Perspektive oder in anderer Umgebung als wertvoll eingestuft werden kann. Schreibe ich zum Beispiel nur „Hans Heyer“ und habe das Glück, dass dieses Foto von Heyer im Ford Capri ausgezeichnet wird, scheidet ein Porträt „Hans Heyer“ aus. So scheint es derzeit gedacht zu sein, worin ich aber keinen Sinn erkenne. Es war auch wohl nicht immer so. Ich meine mich zu erinnern, dass ich anfangs kritisiert wurde, weil der Scope nicht präzise genug war. Im Übrigen wusste ich nicht, dass ich kein Bild eines Objekts als wertvoll vorstellen soll oder darf, von dem es nur ein weiteres in den Commons gibt. Bisher war ich der irrigen Annahme, zum Beispiel ein sehr seltenes, vielleicht sogar einziges historisches Foto falle unter „Valued Images“. Nun erfahre ich aber, dass es noch etliche vergleichbare Aufnahmen geben muss, aus denen die Kritiker das wertvollste auswählen können. Viele Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    Es muss nicht unbedingt weitere Aufnahmen geben - aber wir haben ja nun mittlerweile so viele Bilder auf Commons, dass es kaum einen sinnvoll definierten Bereich geben dürfte, der nicht schon wenigstens eine Handvoll Bilder umfasst. (Es gibt immerhin schon 39 Bilder von der Spitze des Mount Everest und etliche Dutzend vom Südpol...) bzw. im Umkehrschluss: Wenn da nur ein Bild im "Bereich" ist, ist dieser wohl zu eng gewählt. Und rein grundsätzlich ist der Gedanke der "valued images" schon, herausragende Bilder eines Bereichs auszuzeichnen - und dazu sollte es dann halt schon andere Bilder geben, aus denen dann das auszuzeichnende "herausgeragt". Was das Hans Heyer-Bild angeht, so wäre ein möglicher Bereich "Hans Heyer im Rennen" (dies aber vermutlich zu eng gefasst), "Ford Capris bei Autorennen" - oder vielleicht auch "Nürburgring in den 1970ern". Wie gesagt: Eigentlich definiert die Projektseite doch recht genau, was als Bereich geeignet ist und was nicht, nur halt nicht speziell auf Autos abgestellt. Was da über einzelne Tier- und Pflanzenarten geschrieben steht, kann man aber genau so auf Automodelle beziehen. Also: Der Bereich ist das Automodell, der Unterbereich z.B. "bei Autorennen", "in den 1970ern" oder "auf dem Nürburgring".
    Aber wie auch immer: Es ist kein guter Ansatz, die an deiner Bereichswahl geäußerte Kritik als "Spiel mit den Scopes" zu betrachten. Die Bereichsdefinition ist eine grundlegende Angelegenheit bei den VI, ich kann durchaus nachvollziehen, dass andere Benutzer mit deinen Scopes nicht einverstanden sind und sehe wie geschrieben auch keine Schikane in der geäußerten Kritik. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
    Die Projektseite definiert ziemlich verwirrend bzw. widersprüchlich, was als Bereich geeignet und was zu eng und was zu weit ist. Ich habe deshalb den Schluss der Ausführungen nur noch überflogen. Und warum Heyer in dem Scope nicht hätte erwähnt werden dürfen und es zum Beispiel hätte „Nürburgring in den 1970ern“ heißen müssen, verstehe ich nicht. Hätte da jemand unter diesem Scope ein Blümchen fotografiert gehabt und auszeichnen lassen, wäre der Heyer von vornherein rausgefallen. Das verstehe ich alles nicht, und wahrscheinlich liegt es nicht an meinem vorgerückten Alter, sondern an dem kaum zu durchschauenden Verfahren und seinen Auslegungen, die ich oben als „Spiel mit den Scopes“ bezeichnete. Mittlerweile betreffen die Schikanen gegen mich übrigens nicht nur die Scopes. Gruß -- Spurzem (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
    Es "muss" ja nicht so heißen, aber „Nürburgring in den 1970ern“ wäre halt ein gültiger Scope. Eine Wahl eines "hervorragenden Bilds" innerhalb eines bestimmten Bereichs ist natürlich immer eine subjektive Angelegenheit. Wie ja nun schon mehrfach gesagt, halte ich selbst gar nichts davon - und lasse halt die Finger davon. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
    Hallo Reinhard, kannst Du bitte den GRDN711 fragen, was er mit seiner neuesten Provokation zum Foto des Cunningham Special von 1924 bezwecken will? Um Mängel, die das Bild wertlos machen, kann es nicht gehen. Ich will diesen Typen nicht mehr selbst ansprechen, es sei denn, es ergäbe sich die unwahrscheinliche Gelegenheit, ihm unter vier Augen zu sagen, was von ihm zu halten ist. Freundliche Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
    Hallo Lothar, was bitteschön ist eine Provokation an "Ich mag die andere Ansicht dieses Autos, aber diese ist unaufgeräumt und am Vorderrad abgeschnitten und zeigt die rechte Seite des Autos nicht deutlich"? Das ist eine völlig zulässige und nachvollziehbare Meinungsäußerung zum Bild. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Reinhard Kraasch: Es geht nicht um die Meinungsäußerung. Die Provokation besteht darin, dass das Foto mit rein subjektiver Begründung für unbrauchbar erklärt wird, obwohl es kein vergleichbares Bild dieses sehr seltenen Autos in den Commons gibt. Der wahre Grund für das Urteil ist wahrscheinlich der Name des Fotografen. Mir gefällt auch die eine oder andere der unter VI vorgestellten Aufnahmen nicht oder habe keine Beziehung dazu, äußere gelegentlich meine Meinung, schlage aber kaum einmal mit dem „Wertlos“-Hammer zu. Hätte ich mein Foto des Cunningham unter FP zur Diskussion gestellt, hätte ich ein gewisses Verständnis für GRDN711's die Nörgelei. -- Spurzem (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
    Hallo Lothar, ich lese nirgendwo "unbrauchbar" oder "wertlos". Außerdem hält er dein anderes Bild für besser, insofern verstehe ich weder "es gibt kein anderes Bild" noch "der hat etwas gegen mich". Unabhängig davon ist aber "es gibt kein anderes Bild" kein Qualitätsmerkmal. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
    Da steht freilich nicht „wertlos“. Aber wenn ich ein Bild als wertvoll vorstelle, und der Juror schreibt „kontra“ dazu, erklärt er es für unbrauchbar. Würde es ihm lediglich aus irgendwelchen Gründen nicht gefallen, schriebe er vielleicht „neutral“. Ansonsten war es bis vor Kurzem so, dass von einem Gebäude oder von einem Fahrzeug mehrere Fotos als wertvoll anerkannt wurden, wenn sie aus unterschiedlicher Perspektive aufgenommen waren. Und auch die Einmaligkeit eines Fotos galt in der Vergangenheit als Qualitätsmerkmal. Anders sehe auch ich die Kriterien für QI und FP. Aber bei FP spielt inzwischen zum Beispiel die Bildgestaltung keine Rolle mehr. Dort genügt es, dass die Aufnahme einigermaßen scharf ist, egal ob unter- oder überbelichtet, Autos mit Preisschildern in den Scheiben, irgendwelches Gerümpel im Hintergrund usw. -- Spurzem (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
    Wie auch immer: Es ist das gute Recht eines jeden, in einer Abstimmung mit "Kontra" zu stimmen. Eine Provokation ist jedenfalls etwas anderes. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

     Not done I'm closing here, as I'm really not sure what we [admins] could else do about this dispute (except maybe blocking Spurzem for getting personal and assuming bad faith). Regards --A.Savin 13:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

    This user is rapidly posting images with the wrong file name and description. He doesn't respond to requests on his talk page to correct this. See this series as an example not all "Cafe Friescheveen Haren Meerboomweg", not all "vuurtoren Ameland" not all "Lesbos castle Mitilene", etc. etc. it is about 5500 photos. Gouwenaar (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

    Addition: the section on the user talk page is #SVP foto's individueel en goed beschrijven + correcte categorieën toevoegen (in Dutch). --JopkeB (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    Kept uploading images with wrong filenames and descriptions on 5 june. Therefore issued a warning on their talk page. Ellywa (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

    ᱫᱚᱞᱚᱱ ᱯᱨᱳᱵᱟᱥ

      — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

    Thanks you so much for Talk. ᱫᱚᱞᱚᱱ ᱯᱨᱳᱵᱟᱥ (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

    Keymap9

    Keymap9 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log

    User uploads thousands of duplicates of Twemoji using pattypan, could someone fixed it? --A1Cafel (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

    Sorry, but what's the issue here? If these are duplicates, can you please point some out? What would "fixed" look like? Are you asking for a large deletion? A deletion of eveything? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
    Like File:Twemoji13 1f9d1-1f3fd-200d-1f9b3.svg, File:Twemoji13 26c5.svg, File:Twemoji13 270d-1f3fc.svg and so on (Just simply click some of his uploads and you will find out). I'm not sure if a batch deletion is appropriate or not, that's why I'm asking for input. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
    Hi A1Cafel (talk · contribs), before throwing names and accusations, it's good to discuss with the user in question, don't you think? I uploaded the latest version 13 of Twemoji (version 13.1.1), which is used in the full emoji table (of which I am the current maintainer) of our Emoji page. Keymap9 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
    However, it seems there is no difference between the version 12 and 13 of the emoji, so the system recognized them as duplicate. The dupes are up to thousands, which is a huge number that may need attention from admins and other users. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
    • OK, so what should we do here? We do not need to act as an archive of all Twemoji versions (they have GitHub for that). We probably should offer a full set of the latest version, as a resource for those wanting emoji libraries. In which case, we really need to rename all the Twemoji files and remove the embedded version number. Then we could handle a new version by uploading just any new (or possibly changed) files to new names. Existing files could be left unchanged, there would be no duplicates.
    But if the filenames have embedded set versions like this, we either upload new files as duplicates (as has happened), or else there's no simple way to see the whole set of emoji files as we can no longer predict their correct filenames, we'd have to do directory lookups for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
    The version of Twemoji corresponds to the version of Unicode supported: therefore each version contains more emojis than the previous one. In addition, some emojis are redrawn from one version to another, or from one minor version to another (that's why I took the lastest version 13, the 13.1.1, rather than the version 14 which was released more recently, so as not to have to deal with differences between minor versions).
    Obviously, not all emojis are redrawn from one version to another. So I have no problem with the idea of deleting old versions if there is an easy way to do it. On the other hand, we need a complete collection of emojis, and therefore for me the easiest thing is to upload the complete collection, in its last completed version: I intend to upload the lastest version 14 once that version 15 will be released (but if you see another way to do it, I'm all ears). Keymap9 (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

    Now, I would like to know if it is a normal procedure to report someone in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems when we do not understand their action, and before coming to talk to them? Keymap9 (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

    @Keymap9: No, that is not normal. I just posted about it in my extant section User talk:A1Cafel#Warning.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: Thank you! Keymap9 (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
    I understand you mean no harm. However, deleting old versions of the emoji required huge administrative works. I honestly think that this may need attention from admins. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Keymap9: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

    Very thruthfll never lies trust me bro this isnt fake (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log

    Garbage uploads, NOTHERE. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

    User:Racconish willfully sending irrelevant warning message templates

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

    here is a formal complaint against this user.

    the edit in question is special:diff/660022791.

    context: supposedly the warning message was a response to my edit on File:George Mayerle test chart (1)..JPG. however, 34 minutes before that, this user has already acknowledged in special:diff/660015490 that my edit solved the DR for that file.

    conclusion: this user sent out the irrelevant warning message on purpose. RZuo (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

    Hmm, a "formal complaint" for one (1) alleged misbehaviour. At the same time the complainant does not follow the guidance for this board, especially #1 and #4.
    Now, Racconish used this standard-template to deliver a rather conciliatory message "I agree your point is valid, but it would have been better to make it on the DR page.". --Túrelio (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    @RZuo: it seems I have angered you, for which I am sorry. Please consider in the future contacting me directly if you are unhappy about something I did instead of complaining to the community as you did here, here and above about my mindless behaviour, my disingenuity, my long-term groundless claims, or the absence of anything coherent to support my DR nominations, which are complete bullocks. This had led me leave a message on your talk page asking you to avoid personal attacks. I find it also inappropriate to comment on me without notifying me as you did for example here. I suggest, regardless of the outcome of your complaint, that we try to have a more civil and direct relationship in the future. This said, I think your claim that I should be desysoped because I am not willing to contribute and cooperate is extremely excessive. I have elaborated here on the application of COM:SCOPE to the DR on which we disagree. Neither here nor in the message on your talk page which is the immediate reason of your "formal complaint" is there any breach of Common's policies or misuse of sysop tools or quality. Concerning the latter, our deletion policy is that removal of deletion templates instead of comments on the DR page are not appropriate, while withdrawals by the nominators are acceptable if they make consensus. In this specific case, directly removing a deletion template on a file while leaving it on its duplicate was creating a confusing situation for the closing admin and I still believe it would have been better to express your opinion on the DR page, leave me as the nominator a chance to withdraw the nomination of both files (which I eventually did) or inform the closing admin, instead of enforcing - partially - your opinion (note: the contribution at stake is now deleted and can be viewd by admins here). In any case, the template I used on yout talk page is not a threat and I have taken the extra care to add a clarification sentence. Nevertheless, please trust in the future I am willing to take into account any criticism you would be kind enough to formulate directly to me. — Racconish💬 07:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC) updated 12:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose, Racconish did nothing that warrants a desysop.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
     Comment I am actually more concerned about this diff, which is entirely uninformative. In fact I see a general tendency (i.e. not just by Racconish) of slapping template after template onto someone's talk page, often with antagonizing images, when engaging in real conversation would be preferable. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    In retrospect, I would agree with you, it is always better to be explicit. When I did it, I just had in mind to suggest as mildly as possible a desescalation of harsh words in a context which was unambiguous (cf. the quotes above); and I would not say that asking a contributor to please remain civil - a request which btw is also present on the header of the present page - is a "slap" or in any way even remotely antagonizing. Just out of curiosity: would you have preferred me to raise a "formal complaint" about the names calling or would you agree an admin is expected to be thick-skinned? — Racconish💬 16:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    My own skin as a long-time admin on a variety of projects since the 1980s has grown fairly thick :) Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    At this point I would expect RZuo to comment and hopefully to accept my proposition to shake hands and move on. — Racconish💬 08:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, I have to ask another admin to step in since the situation is degenerating.

    • After the first polite warning on deletion template removals for which Rzuo complained, and which has been discussed in detail above here comes a stream of new removals : [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32].
    • I undid the first, explained them the problem with 3D pictures [33], but the reaction was an unexplained revert of my edit [34].
    • After my reversal of the other deletion templates removals, duly explained in the diff comment and with an additional coment on the DR page, there was not only a reversal but a strange comment on my possibility to "appeal" their "decision" [35].

    Since I do not wish to contribute to an edit war and in view of the difficulty to communicate with this user, I would be grateful if somebody else could deal with this. Thanks, — Racconish💬 16:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @RZUO: 16:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    a note on the first complaint:

    i didnt expect any action would be taken against this user. i filed the complaint merely for it to go into the archives for recording purposes, so i had nothing to add on to my complaint and didnt reply at all, until the 2nd complaint below is essential.--RZuo (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    Second complaint

    did this user do as they say, "shake hands and move on" special:diff/660819645?

    obviously not, as consistent with my past observations and prediction of his behaviour. i dont even bother replying to any of this.

    a rule of thumb on wiki is, en:WP:Don't feed the trolls.

    as i have said earlier in another interaction with this user, "i would not respond to disingenuous users" special:diff/654030451. that impression resulted from multiple interactions with this user, e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream. (you may use https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py to dig up more for me.)

    but the last straw was the following:

    1. at 09:44, 5 May 2022, this user did Commons:Deletion requests/File:Patricia JANEČKOVÁ - Voi che sapete - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.webm. - i saw it, thinking, "ok... nothing concerning. any reasonable user would see that it's from an official youtube channel and it's cc, and would vote to keep or close it as such."
    2. then at 10:11, 5 May 2022, this user did a batch Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Patricia Janečková. - my impression deteriorates immediately, from the past interactions and this nonsense batch nominations, because not even all the files nominated fit his alleged rationales: File:Patricia Janečková got the YouTube Silver Creator Award.webm is a selfie style video; File:Patricia JANEČKOVÁ - For all my fans.webm and File:Patricia Janečková March 2022.jpg can also easily be done by herself, or her family. in any case, no one would question the copyright of these things.
      at 10:17, in response to this, i simply undid his edit on my talk page with an allcaps sentence, questioning whether this user was aware of the facts special:diff/654020919, but i was still patient enough not to entertain their pointless DRs (feeding the troll)--i didnt reply to those DRs.
    3. at 10:25, another batch DR was hurled on my uploads Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by RZuo after my allcaps message to this user.

    by this time, the conclusion is nothing but that this user is making DR for his own fun. this user is editing to annoy other users for his own fun. but i'm kind enough to continue ignoring these tactics, for example by leaving those junk sent by this user on my talk page, until special:diff/660022791 on 30 May finally got my nerves and made me file the first complaint. what did he want from File:George Mayerle test chart (1)..JPG, when the ultimate fate is either deletion as a duplicate or PD-1923? of course he's not concerned about the file, but just used it as an opportunity to send more junk to my talk page.

    when did he become so eager to communicate? where is his response after many users have joined in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Patricia Janečková?

    enough pretence.

    most recently, this user has kept putting back his pointless DR templates on files whose sources and copyright statuses have been sorted out.

    not just that, this user also undid annotation and categorisation efforts. that's clear-cut instances of vandalism now. i believe there have been many users that were blocked because of the many pointless DRs they make, as well as removal of content.

    (to be continued... have to attend to other emergency.)--RZuo (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    Procedure of deletion requests (DR)

    quoting some procedures here for those who may be unfamiliar.

    Commons:Deletion_requests#Closing_discussions: "Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial."

    Commons:Deletion_requests#Appealing_decisions: "for a file that was kept, by renominating it for deletion. This should not be done unless you can add new information or clarification."--RZuo (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    But it also says: Commons:Deletion_requests#Closing_discussions: "Administrators closing deletion requests are expected to provide adequate explanation for their decision." This of course does not mean that non-admins should close requests without explanation. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that I do not agree on the DRs with  Racconish, and probably have the same opinion as RZuo on them: professional photos of models are in scope, and official channels releasing a permission, generally own the rights of the videos/photos because there are usually works for hire. Requesting further verification is close to copyright paranoia.
    However, nothing in Racconish is out of bounds. The doubts on the files are legit, and we must accept different opinions. The DRs are here to request the community opinion on difficult cases. The templates used are the standard ones, meaning that we cannot consider it as a bad behaviour. Sometimes, as Racconish already recognised, it's useful to point at the diffs, to better explain why a warning has been given to a user. On the other hand, assuming bad faith is not really tolerated on Wikimedia projects, so I would slow down on personal attacks. Ruthven (msg) 07:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

    Ahmed11224

      — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done Blocked for a month. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ahmed11224. Yann (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

    Porn spammer

    user:Cnpz12345 has done nothing but spam-upload bad dick pics. Dronebogus (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

    Creepy user

    user:Slemonc510’s only uploads are a bunch of unpleasantly fetishistic photos of an obviously underage girl, stolen porn, and a now-deleted upload that was supposedly of underage sexual activity. Please nuke and block. Dronebogus (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

     Not done It is just some copyvios from the Internet, no child pornography. The deleted pic was a drawing, probably an hentai taken from the Net. A deletion request has been opened already (files speedy deleted as copyvios). Plus, @Dronebogus: you should have notified Slemonc510 of this ANU in his talk page. --Ruthven (msg) 07:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

    Legal threat by User:Fans of Kingdom of France

    Today out of the blue, Fans of Kingdom of France (talk · contribs) has, in addition to personal attacks against me "Hey Mr. Marxist Communist" and "based on your personal interest"[36] and "is obviously a Marxist and a communist and loves the republic"[37], issued a definite legal threat against me: "I will sue you."[38] and repeated it, even after being asked by a fellow admin to behave civil, "I will definitely sue the @Túrelio user in court."[39]. As I'm not aware of any run-in with this user, I assume this is all about my duplicate-deletion of File:Flag of Kingdom of Italy.png (-> File:Flag of Italy (1861-1946) crowned.svg), as requested by Fry1989. While every admin action may be discussed, such a threat is completely unacceptable. I therefore propose banning this user until he withdraws his legal threat. --Túrelio (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done Blocked for a month. We want a peaceful atmosphere here. Account created on June 6th, so not really a new user, but probably a sock of LTA. Yann (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

    NistelrooySMG

    NistelrooySMG is a problematic user, who has uploaded dozens of copyvios despite repeated warnings. They have not been blocked here, but they were in the Spanish Wikipedia last month, and they resorted to creating sockpuppets, JavierMontesC, where they have continued such disruptive behaviour there and here. I have tagged several copyvios I could spot (although many were properly tagged, for the sake of truth). The relationship between both accounts has been confirmed by a CU in the Spanish Wikipedia. I think they should be blocked here, too. However, I leave it up to you. I have gone and tagged both userpages as sock and sockmaster. --Bedivere (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done: NistelrooySMG and JavierMontesC indef-blocked for SP by Pi.1415926535. --Túrelio (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

    User blocked in eswiki because intimidation/harassment to another users now continues here's https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drachentöter78&diff=662885151, as implied part I don't proceed against the user, please take care of him Regards!! Ezarateesteban 11:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

    Block log in eswiki

    +1, per es.wiki admin. --LuchoCR (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
     Question @Ezarate Given this request, do you think that we can trust Drachentöter78 in having a good and constructive behaviour here on Commons?
    @Drachentöter78 Eso quiere decir que desde ahora paras cualquier forma da interacción agresiva con los demás usuarios y te concentran en cargar fotos educativas en Commons. Y ya esta. Ruthven (msg) 07:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    Salve, @Ruthven: come immagino tu abbia già visto, è stato un sollievo momentaneo, corretto poco dopo. D'altra parte, purtroppo, non ho molto tempo per caricare le foto, ma di tanto in tanto faccio piccole modifiche e correzioni. Non ho avuto altri problemi, come si può evincere dalla mia cronologia, né qui né in altri progetti —tranne che nella Wikipedia spagnola, ovviamente, ma nemmeno lì ho avuto appena a che fare con questi due utenti che reclamano il mio blocco globale—. Ti saluto cordialmente. — Drachentöter78 (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Drachentöter78 Si, ho visto: i tuoi contributi su Commons sono del tutto normali. Il problema sono proprio le interazioni di questi ultimi giorni con Ezarate o le tue uscite come questa che sono problematiche e lontano dalla mellowness richiesta. Ruthven (msg) 09:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Ruthven: beh, credo che la mia uscita sia stata puntuale e l'ho cancellata subito (è stato uno sfogo, di quelli di cui uno si pente cinque minuti dopo di averli espressi, e volevo cancellarlo già prima che Ezarate me lo chiedesse). Nella Wikipedia in spagnolo ho ricevuto due o tre denunce di fila in uno o due giorni da parte di persone a me purtroppo appena conosciute (e altrettante richieste di cancellazione della mia pagina personale senza preavviso da parte di altri «soliti ignoti»), per dettagli (un video musicale, un'apprezzamento generale della buona ortografia...), e purtroppo un laissez faire quasi totale per quanto riguarda il modo in cui qualcuno ha potuto rivolgersi a me («Quale parte non capisci di...?»). Questo potrebbe forse spiegare, anche se non giustificare, ovviamente, il mio sfogo. Per il resto, accettata la mia situazione, la mia interazione qui con Ezarate è stata, credo, normale e la cosa più rispettosa del mondo, penso: «OK, Esteban. Se questo è il modo in cui mi chiedete di farlo [e cioè, con un "per favore"], ecco fatto, punto e basta, e la questione è chiusa per me, anche se ritengo che la mia espulsione da Wikipedia sia stata molto ingiusta. Cordiali saluti». E «Tuttavia, le chiedo di non sollecitare la mia espulsione globale dal progetto, per favore. Grazie». Ma sembra che io non sia degno nemmeno di ricevere una risposta. Ti saluto ancora e apprezzo davvero la tua mellownes, venendo da lì. — Drachentöter78 (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    We can assume good faith, but the intimidation/harassment must stop immediately, only uploads photos in scope. Regards!!! Ezarateesteban 12:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    What "intimidation", what "harassment must stop immediately"? Where? When? I have no issue in any other project at all, and here it has been a one-off issue already resolved days ago, as I communicated to you ("OK, Esteban. If you ask me to do so, that's it, full stop, matter closed, although I consider that my expulsion from Wikipedia has been very unfair. Best regards.")—but you did not answer. Perhaps yours, insisting on my global blocking? Regards. — Drachentöter78 (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

    Copyvio again

    Moge-Kov (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log two more blatant copyvios after the recent last warning. Xunks (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

    User:Luke_atlas

    This user posted a lot of company or goverment agency's logo files and received some removing notice due to licensing problems. But he repeatedly uploading same copyvio logo files and using socks to avoid for blaming.

    Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency's logo (ja:防衛装備庁)
    Japan Coast Guard's logo (ja:海上保安庁)

    From my DR and this user's comments in User talk:Minorax, this user may has a suspicious behavior in the point of complying the COM:L. Additionally, we may need CU. --Netora (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

    I kept a final warning to stop copyvio, all files deleted Ezarateesteban 11:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

    Nicolay Sidorov

    Nicolay Sidorov (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log update File:Map of the war in Donbass.svg and renamed all city to the Russian-style language. I think it's not сonsensus and COM:POV.--白猫shiro nekoОбг. 17:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

    @AlexKozur: I think you meant Nicolay Sidorov (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    Yes. Sorry.--白猫shiro nekoОбг. 07:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
    The version that transliteration from the Russian language in relation to those cities where the Russian language has always dominated is less used in English is absolutely erroneous. Look: I just open some articles on Wikipedia, for example, an article about Kiev, it starts like this: "Kyiv or Kiev is the capital and most populous city...." Or for example, I open an article about Lugansk, and there: "Luhansk or Lugansk is a city in eastern Ukraine...." Or else, an article about Kharkov: "Kharkiv, also known as Kharkov, is the second-largest city...." This means that both options are permissible. In addition, transliteration from Russian is the traditional name of all these cities. I believe that using the traditional option is more correct, regardless of political decisions. If tomorrow Putin orders Moskva instead of Moscow or Sankt-Petersburg instead of St. Petersburg, we will not follow such a decree, is not it? Then why should we blindly follow the ukrainian guidelines in Wikipedia? Moreover, this looks unacceptable when it comes to the Russian cities of Donbass, which historically have nothing to do with Ukraine ---Nicolay Sidorov (talk)
    This is not Wikipedia. You should have uploaded a separate file, instead of overwriting an existing one. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Yann see please this comment for Nicolay Sidorov. It's elementar COM:POV. do I need to explain each city about its historical name? and historically russification of Ukraine everyone? and everyone why this is POV? Original name En.wiki Horlivka, see map Gorlovka! Very good protected on wrong and conflicting vers. Normal conses map File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. Why is there a need to reach a consensus on each map increase? 白猫shiro nekoОбг. 21:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    Most of the towns on the map don’t have particular English names. I guess New York is the only one with an English name. The towns have both a Ukrainan and a Russian name, and in most cases they just differ by their orthography. The Ukrainian versions often have 〈h〉 instead of 〈g〉 or 〈i〉 instead of 〈o〉. If you insist that the Ukrainian version is the right one, you just try to push one certain point of view. Both versions are equally valid, and to handle the issue neutrally, it would be best to put both versions on the map, which for practical reasons is not feasible as it would clutter the map. I think it is perfectly reasonable to use the Ukrainian names for Ukrainian controlled territory and the Russian names for territory controlled by DNR, LNR or Russia. Maybe the towns where there is fighting going on should be labelled both ways. The interesting part of the map however are not the names, but the changing frontline. Nicolay Sidorov has done a great job in keeping the map updated daily for months, but thanks to the edit war and the subsequent edit protection, the map now remains frozen. :-( -- Sloyment (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
    Judging by the reports, the signage in Russian-controlled territories is immediately renamed in Russian (see [40]). So it indeed makes sense for a descriptive map to switch placenames as they are being switched on the ground, highlighting in the process the importance of cultural-linguistic issues. This does not contradict with the above-mentioned general guidance on Ukrainian placenames, which allows such exceptions. I suggest a wikilink for each place could solve the issue. Kahlores (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

    Problem admin breaking template, and abusing admin tools again

    I have for a long time been editing sorting out London based categories and have found "Template:London subdivisions categories" very useful for this task. Until today, now it has been altered so that now in most cases it no longer works. By Blackcat an admin with past form of Abusing admin tools, rude and uncouth editing, bad faith actions and edit Waring. He occasionally has edited London Categories with a bizarre war against the word Stadium with his behavior descending to edit wars and Admin tool abuse, but has little interest in the subject of London. His edits have not only broke the navigational template but are also unwelcome to the major user of it. I reverted his edit to the previous one that worked. Since then he has protected the template claiming it is to "prevent vandalism" this is clearly a lie as I only edited the template once and fixing it is not vandalism. This is another occasion of this user abusing his admin tools if he disagrees with me he should discuss not strong arm his agenda. Something else this admin has a history of doing. In his edit summery he ties to justify his actions as "Widely used template", I am by far the major user of this template and by far the major user of the category London and it's subcats, the template has been wrecked by someone with little to no previous interest in London. There was nothing wrong with the Template and no need for any modifications. Now it fails to work. Please can anyone looking into this treat this issue fairly and look into repairing the template Oxyman (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

    If you are going to post this in two places, it's better to remove the one you don't want. I also believe that you will get more people to pay attention with neutral headers like the template name rather than getting into the personal history here. Either way, we are communicating at the other one so I suggest this be closed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    Note: discussion moved to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Problem_admin_breaking_template,_and_abusing_admin_tools_again. --Ruthven (msg) 10:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

    @Savemylicence0 overriding my edits

    @Savemylicence0 seems to be the account of a traffic ticket defense agency in Canada, https://www.demerits.ca/. Their first upload was their logo, which included an advertisement in the caption, that I removed and warned them for in their talk page.

    Later they uploaded File:NABLC police officer ticketing a driver.jpg (then called File:Save my licence.jpg) with another advertisement on both the caption and description, after I had told them not to. They also cited themselves as author and source. The file was (and still is) an image depicting a police officer ticketing a driver.

    After reverse searching the image I found it came from a US Navy employee https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6698070, and I repurposed the image changing it's description, caption, source, author and licensing, and requesting a rename. @Savemylicence0 then reverted my changes adding themselves back as the author and source. I reverted this and left a message on their talk page.

    I then uploaded a higher resolution version from the original source, and my renaming request was accepted. Some time later, I look at my watchlist to find @Savemylicence0 has reverted my upload to the previous lower-quality version for no apparent reason.

    Could an administrator warn them and undo their revert to avoid an edit war? Thank you! -- Aimarekin (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done? The user is warned, I reverted the last edit. Taivo (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Aimarekin: I notified them of this section on their user talk page, as you should have.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

    This new user uploaded images of actors from TV or website shows. I marked them as Copyvio and this user should be put on a watch list in case of further violation. Pierre cb (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done. I warned the user. At moment that's enough. Taivo (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Pierre cb: I notified them of this section on their user talk page, as you should have.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

    IBalancedAll

    My Wikipedia mentee, @IBalancedAll, has uploaded several photographs presumably without giving permission to the volunteer response team. This is probably done in good faith, but they certainly need to be warned. I dream of horses (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

    @I dream of horses: ✓ Done, I warned the user and signed for you there.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

    Single purpose junk account

    User:Sex in human does nothing but upload low-quality, likely stolen porn with engrishy descriptions. Their page is similarly gibberish. Possibly spam, otherwise just not here to be helpful or too incompetent to bother with. Dronebogus (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done Blocked and nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

    User spamming another account

    Someone by the name of 2022 tatsu had sent spam messages in Flagvisioner's and SagoShader's talk pages. I believe this is a sock puppet of Jurisdrew. I also found evidence that 112.206.98.61 and 2022 tatsu are related based on activity inside and outside of Commons. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

    @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: If the outside activity is logged on a WMF wiki, report on that wiki or escalate to m:srg; if not, ca@wikimedia.org may help (given full email headers or server logs, as appropriate). (ec) or both.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
    Okay, but what about 2022 tatsu spamming messages on user pages? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
    @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: Of course, that is unacceptable and I hope a Commons Admin addresses it.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
    I forgot that he or she also removed deletion requests in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:SagoShader SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

    DogeGamer2015MZT and DogeGamer2015MZT2

      — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

    DogeGamer2015MZT2: My native language is not english so pardon me for the mess, i know that i wasn't doing some things right but i'm not the puppet of anyone.

     Comment DogeGamer2015MZT2 is blocked for socking. @Jeff G.: You should inform the users when reporting them here. Yann (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks, sorry I forgot this time.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

    Lenguaje subjetivo y casi agresivo

    Ver Commons:Deletion requests/File:مصطفى الياس عمر.jpg y advertir el usuario. Gracias. 191.125.13.130 22:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

    Subjective and almost aggressive language
    See Commons:Deletion requests/File:مصطفى الياس عمر.jpg and warn the user. Thanks.
    translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I warned the nominator. Yann (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

    Copyright violation

    Rostyslav_Pelekh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log Please react accordingly to user's upload of copyrighted images. Thanks. Renvoy (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done Last warning sent, all files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

    User uploading dicks and nonsense

    User:World Sex King, besides being an obvious username policy violation, has done nothing but upload junk and porn with nonsense descriptions. Dronebogus (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

    CP user

    user:Jerryspods is uploading both real and fictional child porn. Please block and nuke. Dronebogus (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

     Not done Already warned, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

    IrbIrb5032

    IrbIrb5032 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log

    This new user inputs a lot of photos claiming that they are his own work. However, none have META data to prove it. Could an administrator review his uploads and determine if they are valid? Pierre cb (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done User warned. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by IrbIrb5032. Yann (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
    Misael Cerrato (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

    This user has uploaded a significant number of files that are clearly not available under the stipulated CC licenses. This has been going on for over a year now (see their talk page). Unrepentant, they continue to upload things that were previously deleted (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disney Jr. logo.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disney Junior logo.png, and now re-uploaded at File:Disney Junior logo.png). The user does not seem to care, or at least understand our licensing requirements. Recommend a review of all their uploads (many of which are clearly copyright violations) and a sternly worded warning to them. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

    @Hammersoft: I gave the user a final warning and started Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Misael Cerrato.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

    User creating PDF spam garbage

    User:USA 339.66.4416 does nothing but upload large numbers of weird, useless PDF copies of Wikipedia articles. Pretty sure that’s out of project scope and disruptive. User might be a bot of some kind. Dronebogus (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done. One month block (second block). Thanks for nominating the files for deletion! Taivo (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

    2022 tatsu (again)

    2022 tatsu is up to no good and this time, this user accused me of copyright violations without any evidence (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd&diff=prev&oldid=667936609) and even removed a file that I reported (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_User:SagoShader&diff=667935041&oldid=667273783). As I get deeper, things get really weird. Apparently, this user operates the 112.206.96.94 IP address and it had the same message as before. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done. I blockd both Tatsu and the IP for a week and reverted something. Taivo (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

    User:DokiDoki14

    They have been uploading posters containing non-free media repeatedly. Fehufanga (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

    User:Cesar David MP

    Cesar David MP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

    This user just came off a second block (two weeks) for repeated copyright violations. The day their block expired, they resumed, uploading multiple files under CC licenses that do not appear at the source (File:Logo del Partido Comunista Peruano.png, File:Logo del Partido Comunista Peruano (Marxista-Leninista).png). ― Tartan357 Talk 04:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done. One month block (third block). Uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

    This user joined Commons on 18 May 2022. Their very first action on this wiki was to place "suspected sockpuppet" templates on the talk pages of several editors including myself. I am not a sock puppet, "suspected" or otherwise, and removed the template believing it to be an unprovoked act of vandalism.

    When I checked into this user's global contributions, I found that they had less than 500 global edits and have spent most of them attempting to circumvent our normal deletion process by approaching first Jimbo Wales and then Meta, asking for help removing in-scope files by a blocked user named Midnight68.

    Aside from unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry against myself and several editors in good standing, B. disruptus has also accused Commons of "...(turning) a blind eye to the sockpuppetry and uploading of questionable material by this user over the past decade..." despite the fact that several investigations have been launched over that period. In addition, B. disruptus has provided no concrete evidence to back up their claims, and appears to be a sole purpose account (apparently) created to discredit anybody who has ever uploaded Midnight68's images to Commons.

    After their attempt to post a global ban request on Meta failed, Disruptus returned to Commons and placed deletion requests on several images which had previously been in use since 2017 (see this earlier UserProblems report for more details). They also removed a number of public domain images from English wikipedia on the pretext that they were "added by sock puppet" (no evidence provided).

    Following the previously mentioned UP report, I've been restoring in-scope images to articles where they had been in use for (in some cases) up to five years. Disruptus is now following me from wiki to wiki reverting my changes, sometimes without even providing any reason for doing so. Good Faith Assumptions aside, I believe Disruptus has crossed several lines and needs to be reminded how our deletion process works and that unfounded allegations are considered unacceptable by the community as a whole. JasonGlennHuntly (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

    @JasonGlennHuntly There's no point in mincing words - you are very obviously a sock of User:Midnight68, who was ArbCom banned on Wikipedia and blocked here. A quick look at your uploads should be enough to convince most people. The images which I nominated for deletion were fake and fetishistic ads created by the person behind the Midnight68 account, uploaded by an account previously identified as a Midnight68 sockpuppet, and now defended by you. I have reported Midnight68 and related accounts to the WMF's Trust & Safety group. So far, no action seems to have been taken, but I am still hopeful. B. disruptus (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    I did say that Commons has turned a blind eye to the sockpuppetry, but Jeff G. has asked for my account to be globally locked because of the report here, so I guess it would be more correct to say that some Commons users have done more than just turn a blind eye to protect Midnight68 sockpuppets. B. disruptus (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    @B. disruptus: You are welcome to add to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Midnight68.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Jeff G. For what purpose? It is clear that all other suspected accounts are stale so there is no new information available via the checkuser tool. -- Zache (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Jeff G. I don't much care if Commons blocks JasonGlennHuntley or not. This is a decade long problem that involves several accounts (not all of which have edited Commons) and many Wikipedias. It will continue until there is a global block on Midnight68 and socks. After that, we can start cleaning up after him. You could help, if you wanted to. B. disruptus (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
    Then provide evidence that they are socks. It is not allowed to accuse them of socking if you don't provide evidence.
    If you cannot provide evidence, there is no reason to assume you actually know what you're talking about.
    Do you understand? You may e-mail the evidence privately to checkusers, but you have no option of not providing the evidence for your claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Jeff G. and Tgeorgescu: FYI, I left at least some level of proof of misusing multiple accounts to the steward's discussion. In my personal opinion, it should be enough for blocking the current known sock puppets and also making preventive actions in the future. However, if you think that it should be proven better than I did please say so. -- Zache (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Zache Thank you for this, but neither jeff G. or Tgeorgescu are in a position to do anything about the user. You don't need to spend any time convincing them. Trust & Safety have replied to my report and they will not be doing anything about the user, either. B. disruptus (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
    That's right: you don't need to convince me, you need to convince a checkuser. I read what Zache posted at Meta, and I still don't see why JasonGlennHuntly would be a single purpose account (namely Midnight's guardian angel). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
    Because en:WP:DUCK, it is very unlikely that we have yet another user whose edits focus to a.) drawn panties b.) defending and restoring images created by Midnight68. Including images that were added as vandalism and using sock puppetry. -- Zache (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Zache: do you have anything to say here? B. disruptus (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    I think that based on edits the users who you tagged on the talk page look like that user is same. Also, the common theme is to add or restore the images created by Midnight68 to different wikiprojects. From Wikipedia's point of view, this includes vandalism and spamming. (examples: [41], [42], [43]) and violates also Commons policies by replacing the content of the existing images with new ones. (examples: File:RenPy001.png, File:WikiReader018.png, File:Planet boy.jpg). I think that it is valid argument that this kind editing is problematic and just saying that we cant say if the user is same is ignoring the problem. --Zache (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

    Yes, B. Disruptus is an SPA, and we should all be skeptical of SPAs. That said, their arguments seem more or less on point. We have a banned user obsessed with young girls' underwear and spankings, who creates their own low-quality drawings, fake video games, fake comics, etc. and spams them using Wikimedia projects. Midnight is not some famous artist that people are going to stumble upon on their own. Follow the source links from the many photos we still host to Flickr and you can see they have like 10 views each. Now we have a bunch of other users, including JasonGlennHuntly, also laser focused on drawings of young girls' underwear and spankings, contributing nothing but that kind of content, and again spamming Midnight's images across Wikimedia projects. Just look at their global contribs. After uploading a bunch of underwear comics by others, they proceed (just like other accounts) to various wikimedia projects to add Midnight's images to articles. On Commons, all of their activity after uploading the first set of images has been to defend Midnight's files. Any admin should be able to look at this, see it's beyond an obvious "duck", and take action. The images Midnight creates are also so low quality, and only in-use because Midnight and various socks made them in-use, that they should be deleted as out of scope (a separate conversation, yes). — Rhododendrites talk18:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

     Comment I blocked JasonGlennHuntly as sock. That should not have any impact on actions about B. Disruptus. Yann (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by JasonGlennHuntly.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    In User:Zache/deletion request some set of photos by Midnight68. There is also a whole artificial company category setup category:Kodomo Press‎, category:Lainsbury Press‎, category:Landmark comics‎, category:Public domain super heroes which would require also checking. I think that I will do a deletion request for fake software screenshots first and then continue to other parts. --Zache (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    Now there is Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Midnight68 (Software) for images like software screenshots. --Zache (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    I also created Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Midnight68 (drawings) which contains panty drawings of minors. --Zache (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

    This user is uploading files (at least most of them are with the correct license) with titles and descriptions with comments making some kind of jokes. Examples: calling the President of Argentina Alberto Fernández as "Albertico" every time (see uploaded files); saying in this description that Boris Johnson and Alberto Fernández are "discussing of how to do parties during the lockdown imposed by them because of the coronavirus" (in reference to en:Partygate).

    This user is the same as:

    whose names of files uploaded and descriptions I've changed in the past.

    The changes of titles and descriptions take valuable time, and although the files are right, the use of names and descriptions this user does looks like vandalism and deserves some action. Please consider his use of multiple accounts over the last months. Frodar (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

    Hola señores, es verdad, soy culpable. Me gusta reírme de que al presidente de Argentina le dicen "Albertico" y usar ese nombre, ¿cuál es el problema? Si lo conocen por ese apodo, al igual que William Clinton es conocido como Bill, entre otros ejemplos. Mientras los archivos sean identificables no hay problema. No veo ninguna violación a ninguna política. Podrías presumir buena fe y decírmelo en todo caso. Igual todo bien Frodar, no seas tan burócrata, me da igual que me bloqueen. Mi única intención es que esas imágenes se encuentren en Commons. No es vandalismo lo que estoy haciendo. No te sulfures tanto, tus intenciones punitivistas poco van a rectificarme. Me hubieses hablado, que así se entiende la gente. Un gran saludo. Graciasalbertico22 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    Ah, tener muchas cuentas, mientras no viole ninguna política no es ninguna infracción, pero se ve que sabés mucho de estos temas. Señores, si soy culpable, por favor, un infinite, o un bloqueo largo. Os lo ruego. Me gusta reírme de estas tonterías, de la burocracia. Graciasalbertico22 (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

    Problem84elena

      — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 03:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

     Not done. You warned the user. Next copyvio may result a block. All uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

    User:R vasudevan

    R vasudevan (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log is mass uploading photos with only vague descriptions and unrelated categories. Most of these photos seem irrelevant for Commons, too. Could an administrator keep an eye of this user as much editing of categories is needed. Pierre cb (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done I sent 2 warnings. That should be sufficient for now. Yann (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

    User:பிருந்தா சுப்ரமணி

    பிருந்தா சுப்ரமணி (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log is a new user that uploads thumb without META. Should be warned by administrators and his uploads deleted. Pierre cb (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

    Low resolution and lack of EXIF metadata are not, by themselves, sufficient to prove that their uploads are copyvios. Do you have any concrete evidence? -- King of ♥ 23:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. At first please nominate the uploads for regular (not speedy) deletion. I warned the user. No block is needed at moment. Taivo (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Pierre cb, King of Hearts, and Taivo: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by பிருந்தா சுப்ரமணி.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    Mass uploads by new users from India

    A series of new users from India (such as Brindha sakthivel (talk · contributions · Statistics),பிருந்தா சுப்ரமணி (talk · contributions · Statistics) and SanthoshKhan Annadhurai (talk · contributions · Statistics)) do mass uploads of badly named and describes images with numerous and rarely related categories. This seems to me a tentative to overwhelm Commons. This could be a subject to investigate.

    Pierre cb (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    @Pierre cb: Please inform related contributors about this post here on ANI. Instructions are on top. A09090091 (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    Most images from SanthoshKhan Annadhurai have metadata. I don't see any issues with them. Otherwise see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Brindha sakthivel‎ for images copied from WhatsApp. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    Flag of Saudi Arabia Problems

    Hello Users,
    I have been working on the Arabian and Islamic side of Wikipedia for a little over a year now, and I have noticed a few problems. I recently got into a confict with Aziz bm User talk:Aziz bm over his constant reverting of the File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg. Although his reverts are backed up with a governmental document, it is partially outdated. There are signs of age of that document, such as the design of the Coat of Arms for the Crown Prince (2nd flag on page 10), which does not even match what is use today. Additionally, the colors of the flag on that document have also changed (Page 10). There is definitely another document or royal decree that released for the updating of this flag. Additionally, on Page 12, it shows the calligraphic difference, proving part of my point!!!
    To make it clear, the current version of the Saudi Arabian flag on File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg is used by civilians mainly, but not used in the governmental settings. The current version of the File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg is used in governmental settings, as evidenced by this:
    Aziz bm User talk:Aziz bm showed me instances of File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg on User talk:Xpërt3 and then starts to threaten me about how my edits will "cost me suspension", etc. He is still reverting other files such as Royal Standard of Saudi Arabia.svg, which is not even backed by his evidence. Here is an example of that file in use with the flag version I have been reverting back to:

    1-[44] 2-[45]

    On Admins Noticeboard page, I referenced another users response from around a year ago about the same issue, and here is what the user said:
    Zyido states, "I've tried to gather examples of the flag in official use: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6, Example 7, Example 8, Example 9, Example 10. As you can see, the VM version appears inside the royal court, when receiving dignitaries, and on flagpoles in the country. In addition, here, you can see a video shot inside the Saudi Arabian Standards Organization (SASO), the body responsible for maintaining the flag specifications, with the VM version flag in the office. On the other hand, there are, at least, some examples of the FOTW version being used in an official capacity, but they are fewer in comparison: Example A, Example B. In both instances I could find, the flags have been hoisted on the wrong side, indicating they've been set up by the non-Saudi counterpart. Given all this evidence, I am led to believe that the VM version is at least an official, if not the official, current version of the flag. The FOTW version does have an official origin though: It appears to be based on one of several diagrams in the appendix of the 1973 decree (Page 10, Page 11, Page 12) which established the basis of the current flag law. I've been looking through documents all day trying to find a definitive answer on where the VM version came from. It is my understanding that an official flag construction sheet was created in 1984 and attached to a SASO document numbered م ق س 403-1984. I'm still trying to hunt down this document. I am curious to know everyone's thoughts and how we can proceed with this information, and what the relevant Commons/Wikipedia rules are. My proposal is for both flags to appear on the Wikipedia page as alternatives/variants in some way once we decide which one is the "main" one."
    This is not incorrect calligraphy, as proven by the sources I have provided above. The admin, User:LaundryPizza03 was convinced by Aziz bm's reverts but in my view he didn't look far enough and made a poor decision. I tried contacting the admin to look at the noticeboard and the information I put there but he didn't respond, hence I came here to express my view of the issue. Both flags are correct, but the flag I'm arguing for is used in governmental settings. If one flag had to be used on the Wikipedia page, it should be File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg as the government uses this flag.
    I am starting a new section in order to receive a response. Aziz Bm has been getting multiple responses over the last couple of days and I have not been given a place to express my point with context. Xpërt3 (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    Hi, I gave you space to express your point but you still insist on your stubbornness, I told you several times on your Talk Page that when you upload a file write the source on the summary but you didn’t, that’s why the administration supported me, because I uploaded a file with source. keep in mind that arguing by showing some pictures will not determine the correctness as long as you didn’t add the source. And the sources are either government documents or websites which in fact are already uploaded on File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg. If you’re new in Wikipedia and don’t know what to do then feel free to read some rules that may help you. Aziz bm (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
    This seems highly redundant to a similar post at Commons:Help desk. Xpërt3: what admin action are you asking for? - Jmabel ! talk 02:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think I was clear, but I would like both versions of the flag to be displayed on the Saudi Arabian article as both are legitimate. I would like admits to stop Aziz bm from dismissing the Saudi Flag used in the governmental settings as illegitimate. Nothing so far has been done to limit him from continously reverting and asking for deletion with absolutely no evidence. I'm also asking for an admin to thoroughly investigate the evidence that I have presented and ignore the other users complaintsXpërt3 (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

    Upload war over the flag of Saudi Arabia

    File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
    Xpërt3 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
    Aziz bm (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

    Two users are in an upload war over the calligraphy on the current flag of Saudi Arabia. For the meantime, I have restored the status quo (identical to Xpërt3's version) because Aziz bm's version is identical to File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg, and recommend upload-protecting the file until the dispute can be settled at a Wikipedia RfC. It would be a good idea to upload the status quo version at File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 1).svg, as few files on Commons feature this version.

    LaundryPizza03 (d) 08:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

    Is there justification for having both, appropriately labelled? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    Hi, the dispute has been ended since user @Xpërt3 claimed on his talk page that he will not revert anything and therefore no need for protection. Also, I’ve just uploaded Xpërt3’s version to the type 2 while the previous one have been reverted to distinguish between the two files and because the version I uploaded is almost same to royal decree 1973 page 10 which can be seen in the source, on other hand, the version Xpërt3 uploaded is actually designed by @MapGrid two years ago from Construction Sheet. I’m calling for the this case to be closed since user Xpërt3 on his talk page claimed that he will never reverting anything on File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg and also the two files have been successfully distinguished so the dispute has been ended. Aziz bm 11:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Aziz bm: Please stay logged in.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    As it turns out, the version of Aziz bm is correct based on the provided source. Some variants and derivative works of the flag will need correcting as well; for example, the construction sheet which uses the alternate calligraphy. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 14:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I would like to mention User:LaundryPizza03 that there are two versions of this flag, and although Aziz bm is correct about his version, on Page 12 of that document, it shows the calligraphic difference, which is my version. The provided source he is using to argue for his version was released in 1973, but there is definitely another document or royal decree released for the updating of this flag. One sign of its age and inaccuracy is that the design of the Coat of Arms for the Crown Prince's flag (2nd flag on page 10) does not even match what is use today. The colors have also changed.
    • As another user by the name of User:Zyido stated on the talk page of that flag page, he believes that there should be two versions of this flag on the official Saudi Arabian Wiki page, which I agree with. In the following text, the user refers to FOTW (Aziz Bm's version) and VM (the version I'm arguing for). In addition, he mistakenly states that Page 12 shows Aziz Bm's version of the flag, which is incorrect because the calligraphic version I'm arguing for is there.
    • User:Zyido states, "I've tried to gather examples of the flag in official use: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6, Example 7, Example 8, Example 9, Example 10. As you can see, the VM version appears inside the royal court, when receiving dignitaries, and on flagpoles in the country. In addition, here, you can see a video shot inside the Saudi Arabian Standards Organization (SASO), the body responsible for maintaining the flag specifications, with the VM version flag in the office. On the other hand, there are, at least, some examples of the FOTW version being used in an official capacity, but they are fewer in comparison: Example A, Example B. In both instances I could find, the flags have been hoisted on the wrong side, indicating they've been set up by the non-Saudi counterpart. Given all this evidence, I am led to believe that the VM version is at least an official, if not the official, current version of the flag. The FOTW version does have an official origin though: It appears to be based on one of several diagrams in the appendix of the 1973 decree (Page 10, Page 11, Page 12) which established the basis of the current flag law. I've been looking through documents all day trying to find a definitive answer on where the VM version came from. It is my understanding that an official flag construction sheet was created in 1984 and attached to a SASO document numbered م ق س 403-1984. I'm still trying to hunt down this document. I am curious to know everyone's thoughts and how we can proceed with this information, and what the relevant Commons/Wikipedia rules are. My proposal is for both flags to appear on the Wikipedia page as alternatives/variants in some way once we decide which one is the "main" one."
    Aziz bm, just because I stated that I would not continue to revert as it is unconstructive does not mean the problem is solved. Your version is proved by a source but there are legitimate signs that there has been a decree given later on to address the 1973 decree. This issue must be solved. Xpërt3 (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Aziz bm: you stated above that I (MapGrid) designed a version of the flag two years ago. That is absolute nonsense. My involvement was this:
    • On Feb 16, 2022 I made some minor updates to the flag located at "File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg". The edits were barely visible to the naked eye and therefore cannot be considered to be a new design (or redesign).
    • Also on Feb 16, 2022 I updated the construction sheet (File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (construction sheet).svg) so that it matched "File:Flag of Saudi Arabia".
    • On June 14, 2022 I made some minor edits to "File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg". The edits were barely visible to the naked eye.
    Now I am sitting back waiting for the edit war to die down. I don't have a strong preference as to which flag wins.
    ::@MapGrid: I may be wrong in this point, thanks for notifying Aziz bm (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    Here are even more instances of the flag being used:

    thumb|Crown Prince Salman meeting US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Saudi flag with calligraphy I'm arguing for is visible

    thumb|left|Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman meeting Secretary Pompeo with calligraphy I'm arguing for is visible

    thumb|Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman meeting Brazil's president Jair Bolsonaro with calligraphy I'm arguing for is visible

    thumb|left|Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman meeting India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi with calligraphy I'm arguing for is visible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpërt3 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

    Xpërt3 (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

    I've protected the following files for 2 weeks:

    However, I'm sure this is not a comprehensive list of all Saudi flags. @Aziz bm and Xpërt3: It doesn't matter who is right, the edit warring has to stop. The next time either of you makes a revert or reupload on any image that contains or resembles a Saudi flag, you will be blocked. -- King of ♥ 23:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    Sure. Thanks for notifying Aziz bm (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    The question is what to do from here on. Normally, Commons does not try to police content, so whatever version was uploaded first should be privileged per COM:OVERWRITE policy. However, for a big-ticket filename like "Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg", intuitively it feels like the content of the file should reflect community consensus, and should not be allowed to be arbitrary. I think it is clear that Aziz bm and Xpërt3 will never come to an agreement on this matter on their own. We should probably ask the community in an RfC, and go with the majority opinion (assuming it is well-argued and policy-based, of course). -- King of ♥ 23:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    I’m not going to revert any flags related to Saudi Arabia after your warnings but here are some points I want to clarify.
    1- it’s not about what file was uploaded first, it’s about how accurate the file is, the version i uploaded matches to the royal decree 1973 as it’s mentioned on the summary, Xpërt3’s version matches the (Vexilla Mundi) website so there is a big different between a government website and a private website.
    2- Xpërt3’s arguments are all based on some pictures without providing at least one source from government’s documents and this is a not criterion for determining the correctness.
    Since you said that first should be privileged per COM:OVERWRITE policy, I request someone to work on a similar flag of File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg and doing some small edits on the Calligraphy that can match 100% to the royal decree and prevent copyright at the same time. So they can end all these endless disputes. Same goes to the variant version of File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg Aziz bm (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Aziz bm: I did not say that. I said that usually, the first would be privileged. For example, if user A uploads "File:Paris skyline.jpg", user B cannot replace that image with their own even if their photo is better than A's; instead, B must upload it at a different filename. But here I am explicitly calling out this example as an exception to the rule since "Flag of Saudi Arabia" is too important of a title to leave to chance. -- King of ♥ 01:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
    I have pledged from a previous post that I would stop edit warring as it is unconstructive, but I would like to state a few things in summary:

    User:حسام_علي_جاد00

    حسام_علي_جاد00 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log reuploaded deleted files that were previously updated by Hossam ali gad (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log and their socks. QTHCCAN (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

    The issue has been treated. This can be close, thanks. QTHCCAN (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. QTHCCAN (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

    Spamming using multiple accounts

    These three accounts are all uploading files with promotional content in the descriptions and links to purchase items from the same website: oficinadopaisagista.com.br. It seems they are either the same individual using multiple accounts or there is a coordinated effort by multiple employees of this company to use Commons to promote their products.

    Marbletan (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

    I warned two of them and deleted all their contributions. Taivo (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Marbletan and Taivo: See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jefftemp#Files in Category:Jefftemp (oficinadopaisagista).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    ✓ Blocked - FitIndia Talk 17:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

    SERVERKARATEPE

    Their most recent copyvio upload was 21 June 2022. You've now (7 July 2022) issued a final warning. Why is a block needed a) more than two weeks after the last issue; b) when removal is considered indication a warning has been read; and c) when they've indicated "I will NEVER upload a file to Wikipedia again" (bold in original)? Blanking of one's talk page is not disallowed, and "If you keep being rude like this, I will contact the Wikimedia Foundation" is hardly deserving of a block. Эlcobbola talk 14:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

    I am at a loss. This user not only uploads non-free images, but has apparently edited them in order to alienate the ones shown, or to design them in a way that suits him more, or for whatever reason. So it's not just copyright infringement, but also fakes that aren't marked as falsifications. Just two examples of a whole human (see the uploads):

    In this case, I would suggest still betting on AGF or second chances, but to block directly indefinite.

    @Cendrillonvaiana:

    -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

    Done, User:Elcobbola already has execute it. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

    LeonaardoG

    @Jeff G.: I forgot the previous account password, but i didn't have a lock history or anything like that I was always clean in the project i never deviated anything irregular what should be clarified i will be here to listen and comment anything against me i will defend if there is anything against me. My only mistake was uploading the file regarding copyright, even though i am now aware of the Commons policy. -- LeonaardoG (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    Regarding the archiving of my talk page, it was to be able to empty a little the page had excess content and i ended up archiving my intention was not to make anything invisible or hide something the reason was just that ok? – LeonaardoG (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    I cannot assume good will with user LeonardoG, as his words and actions contradict each other. On June 27, he moved his discussion page to User talk:LeonaardoG/Archives/2022/June. This was a deliberate act, as Leonardo had already contacted me on June 24 asking for help in creating an archive (see my discussion page). It was obvious to me that he was trying to hide all his infringements. His current discussion page doesn't look any better. The categorizations made by Leonardo are mostly wrong and/or incomplete. Checking his uploaded files for copyright etc. will take a lot of time.Nemracc (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    Before creating scratch pages i asked for your help but got no response so i decided to create it on my own just like the first page was created wrong and i ended up asking for deletion. I had no idea how to create pages from drafts and followed pages from other contributors.
    First attempt was to create completely wrong. Draft page -- LeonaardoG (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose I don't see any new copyvios uploaded after the final warning as of 23:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC); there are new copyvio taggings, but only for images uploaded before that time. I think he is genuinely trying his best, and his latest attempt Template:Archive/User talk: LeonaardoG/Archives/2022/June shows a lack of technical ability rather than malice. Most of his uploads in the last few days are fine. -- King of ♥ 04:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
     Not done. You warned the user. Next copyvio may result a block. Taivo (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Taivo and Jeff G.: Two more problematic uploads after the warnings 219.79.40.242 08:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    @King of Hearts: Published in 2022, File:20-05-2022 Presidente Bolsonaro se encontra com empresário Elon Musk em São Paulo.jpg is certainly a copyvio.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    I don't see this as a blatant disregard for Commons policies, but an honest mistake in the midst of dozens of good uploads. Still no need to block. -- King of ♥ 16:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    I think it’s more of a misunderstanding. If they do it again, they may need someone to mentor them. Bidgee (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

    Hide file revisions

    Hi, could you please hide all revisions except the latest on https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Hand%C3%B6lkassetten.jpg&action=history? Thanks in advance. So9q (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done, though this is surely not a "user problem". --A.Savin 12:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

    Legal threats by User:Stemoc

    In this diff] Stemoc said they were going to report an IP address to the authorities because the IP address nominated some of their files for deletion. Such behavior isn't acceptable. Especially from a user that has had an account for 12 years. Stemoc should either be blocked for making legal threats or at least receive a warning not to threaten random editors. Adamant1 (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

    @Adamant1: You did not inform Stemoc about your post here as instructed on the top of the page. Do it yourself next time. A09090091 (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    @A09090091: Yeah I did. It's five comments up from your notice. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Adamant1: Sorry for my ping, I haven't seen your notice. Will revert my addition. A09090091 (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
    @A09090091: No worries. It was kind of buried in the deletion request notices. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
    To be fair, "the authorities" seems like something that could be a result of translation (i.e. they could've just meant "administrators" or "wikimedia foundation" or something). Perhaps Stemoc could clarify, and be mindful that in at least some forms of English, "the authorities" usually refers to law enforcement. — Rhododendrites talk18:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    Stemoc also called users trolls several times and said things along the lines of that users who nominate his files for deletion are intentionally targeting him. So I don't think it's simply a language issue. More then likely he just has a bad attitude and actually threatened to report the IP user to the authorities because of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    You just literally nominated more than a dozen images which i either added, cropped or fixed for deletion and looking at the images you nominated, it seems like you have no knowledge on how licensing actually works and if you nominated images for no real reason for example this one which has been well documented and licensed and there are 1000's of images from that site already on this site and then this one which again is licensed perfectly and falls under the purview of the Australian foreign department domain and not the Fiji Govt one as you didn't bother to go through any of my uploads, you INTENTIONALLY tagged them for deletion, I have been on wikipedia for 15 years, I know what i'm doing and this is more of an attack on me by someone intentionally trying to get my stuff deleted than anything else, if anything @administrators , I would like to now file a complain against this user for stalking and intentionally reporting free images for deletion out of some sort of personal attack, and i would like a neutral admin to rollback his nominations and block the user for personally attacking a long-term user by intentionally nominating my uploads for deletion without following the proper protocols which was to ensure the nominations were justified, which it wasn't ..This user's account is around 5 years old, and yet only become active on commons 2 years ago and per my knowledge on how long CU user data is kept, I may be inclined to further investigate this user myself. Now if this user had straightway come here instead of tagging more than a dozen of images i uploaded for no reason, I would have had a proper discussion, but since he didn't, I won't be wasting my time on this, I hope the admins here take a proper action this time.. Stemoc 05:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
     Comment (non-admin): IMO non-malicious multiple user orientated DRs are not stalking; stalking would be more of doxing style personal attacks. IF the DRs are of malicious nature, they should be speedily closed; not reverted. By the way, account age is not an appropriate argument, we all sometimes make mistakes (sometimes also admins). A09090091 (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
    "this one which again is licensed perfectly and falls under the purview of the Australian foreign department domain." I don't really have anything to say about @Stemoc: 's obviously frivolous personal attacks, but the copyright term for works created by the Australian government is exactly the same as Fiji's, date of creation + 50 years. So in no way is the image "licensed perfectly" like he's claiming it is. The fact that he think it is, and the ensuing personal attacks he lobbied at me as a response, perfectly illustrate why I opened this complaint. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
    Though the Australian Government does freely license some of its works through its departments which use Creative Commons licenses. So the 50 year rule doesn’t always apply. Bidgee (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Bidgee: Obviously the 50 year rule doesn’t always apply. I assume your referring to DFAT though. If so, none of the websites it covers is Facebook and that's where the image in question came from. So the 50 year rule does apply in this case. It's not like I wouldn't have made sure that was the case before I nominated the file for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Adamant1: AFAICT you are wrong here. DFAT certainly applies to media published by the Australian Embassy in Fiji. Yann (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    Certainly? Published on their website yes, but on their Facebook page? Even the DFAT template says "This permission extends to all websites using the DFAT copyright statement". The Facebook website does not use the copyright statement. The template doesn't include Facebook in its included sites. Unless they state otherwise, we have no way of knowing if they no longer post images on their website simply to avoid releasing CC license or if it's just more convient to do it on Facebook. The copyright on the websites such as dfat.gov.au releases information "presented on this website" under CC. How can we just change that to all media published by them anywhere. We would need some kind of copyright law that states that all media published by the embassy/DFAT in general is under CC license(maybe I'm missing where that is), a CC license on their Facebook page, or a mention on their website's copyright page that says their CC license includes their social media. As far as I can see, all we have are the CC licenses on, and for, their own websites. WikiVirusC(talk) 14:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

     Oppose Not a legal threat. 'The authorities' doesn't automatically (or even typically) refer to law enforcement, but simply means those in control. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

    I doubt that's case if his comments are taken in the context of the other threats and aspirations he's made. As well as the fact that the disagreements he's gotten into literally revolve around copyright law. It's not much of a reach to think he took the nominations as me and the IP editor claiming he was breaking the law by uploading copyrighted images. I've seen people act that way before when they were questioned about the legality of their uploads. Also couldn't you make the same handwavy argument if he had specifically said "law enforcement"? Someone could easily interpret "law" as meaning the Commons guidelines if they were willing to give him that much latitude to threaten people. That's why COM:NPLT says it only needs to be a "perceived" threat to be blockable. Not a 100% provable one that the person has already taken action on whatever. It's not like his comments don't go against Commons:Harassment in the meantime either. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
    That's not what COM:NPLT says. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    What's not what COM:NPLT says? The title of NLPT is called "Perceived legal threats" and the second sentence says "It is important not to post comments that others may reasonably be interpreted as a legal threat." What I've said is perfectly in line with both of those. I don't know how things work in other countries besides America, but at least where I live people don't say "the authorities" unless they mean the police. I've definitely never heard anyone use the term to refer to something like a manager of a coffee shop or whatever. So can I reasonably interpret what he said as a legal threat? I think so. There was also this ANI complaint awhile back where someone was blocked for making legal threats to an admin because they said they were going to discuss with their lawyer if their uploads were legal or not. In no way is "I'm going to discuss the legality of my uploads with my lawyer" a 100% unambiguous legal threat toward another user, but the person was still indef blocked anyway because the admin perceived it to be one. So I think what I've said is perfectly in line with NLPT, the outcomes of other ANI complaints. and the fact that literally no in the real world refers to anyone as "the authorities" except for actual law enforcement officers. Especially since Stemoc doubled down on the threats instead of clarifying things when he had a chance to. There's zero reason he should be given the benefit of the doubt about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    You need to be very careful here because this can easily backfire per COM:HA#NOT. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    Stemoc made multiple threats and personal attacks toward me and the IP editor. According to Commons:Harassment "The purpose of is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikimedia Commons unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." I'm sure you'd agree that Stemoc threatening me and the IP editor was an intimidation tactic. Or are you going to argue that him calling for an admin to block me and roll back my nominations was a good faith, pleasant comment made to encouragement me to continuing editing and creating deletion requests? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    You have provided no evidence for any of these allegations, so at this point I would suggest some time for you to cool off. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    He literally said "I would like a neutral admin to rollback his nominations and block the user" in this discussion thread. Jesus Christ. It's almost like you didn't even bother to read the discussion before picking a side or having an opinion about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

     Comment Checking Adamant1's contributions, I've noticed that their deletion requests consistently contain unnecessary and irrelevant disqualifications like 'single-purpose account', 'not a notable person', 'poor quality' when 'out of scope' suffices. I'm reminding Adamant1 that this is Commons, not Wikipedia. Pictures do not need to be of notable people, nor of perfect quality, and users with only one topic of interest are welcome here. In general, users unfamiliar with our purpose are not evil people in need of scolding. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

    Sure, whatever you say dude. I didn't know this report was about my behavior. Can you point to a single instance where I've scolded SPAs or said they were evil? In the meantime it's a little rich that your so concerned about me saying an image is 'poor quality', but then you could apparently care less about Stemoc asking an admin to have someone blocked and their edits reverted over literally nothing. Seriously dude, why are you simping so hard for Stemoc in this discussion? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

     Comment Boomerang applies for Adamant1, see below. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

    Sock of Ngọc Lâm Trần (talk · contribs) Không hề giả trân (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Indef. --Achim55 (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

    User:Dodo10807010

    After receiving the copyvio warning, this user forced through uploading new much more copyvio photos. Netora (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done Blocked for a month. Hope they get the message Gbawden (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

    Adamant1

    Adamant1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Resorting to personal attack here instead to focusing on facts. See also the message in thread above. Yann (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

    I'd be interested to know how you refereeing to Tm's keep message that had nothing to do with DFAT was focusing on the facts. Also, I'm interested to know how you think telling me to "get down" like I was a dog or something was a civil way to handle me requesting you review the close. Or do personal attacks only matter when people are making them toward you but not the other way around? Also, where did I attack anyone in the thread about Stemoc? Nothing I've said in that discussion is anywhere on the level of personal attacks that I've received by him and Guido den Broeder. You really seem to be doing some hardcore picking and choosing here. That said, I'm sorry if I insulted you by saying it was OK to be wrong and asking that you address the issues with using DFAT for images on Facebook. Reporting me seems like a really rather bad faithed, retaliatory way to win the disagreement about it though. Especially coming from an administrator. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
    The user always seems so adamant. 24.185.206.49 20:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
    That's why my user name has the word "adamant" in it ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose Not credible report. Matlin (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    Matlin, what exactly is it that we shouldn't believe? You were recently blocked by Yann, your fifth block in a row. Trying to take revenge is not the way to go. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    Please don't use personal attack on me and don't make off-topic. If you want to talk about it, use my personal talk page etc. Matlin (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

     Support User seems unable or unwilling to communicate in a civil manner. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

    • Comment I've been pretty viciously attacked by multiple users since I nominated the images from the Australian governments Facebook page for deletion. No one involved in either this discussion or the one about Stemoc cared or came to my defense. If anything they have just fed into it. Have I gotten a little defensive about it in the meantime? sure, my message to Yann here, or my responses to Guido den Broeder's clearly retaliatory one sided attempts to have me sanctioned, don't even come close to the amount of flack I've received for committing the apparently grievous sin of reading a copyright template in the meantime though. The amount of personal attacks and bad faith nonsense I've received over it all around is just ridiculous. Sorry I read a copyright template. Really. My bad. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
      Yet somehow all that is visible is bad faith and personal attacks from you. Retaliate for what? I warned you so you could avoid sanctions. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm not really seeing personal attacks by Adamant. The closest thing to a PA I see is a claim that calling one comment a "discussion" is "disingenuous", which is not great, but not all that egregious either. In the disagreement between Adamant and Stemoc, I think Adamant made too much of an issue out of "the authorities" but it was clearly Stemoc who lost their cool (not that I'm advocating for taking action there, either). Similar to "the authorities", I think, Adamant, that it is helpful to use your communicative imagination when you see things like "get down", rather than assume it's some bizarre command like you'd issue to a dog. Commons uses English by default, but an awful lot of users (most, maybe?) do not speak English as their first language. That means the occasional turn of phrase might sound odd. Even those of us who are native English speakers occasionally don't make our point well, and it's helpful when people try to find the underlying point anyway rather than getting distracted by clumsy wording. I cannot imagine what sort of offense I would cause if people expected me to communicate here in French, Spanish, German, etc. :) In any event, it does not seem hard to see that Yann meant something more like "calm down". I don't know who's right at the DR. If there's a link that shows an explicit statement that the division's social media are covered by the same license, that would be helpful, but may I suggest that COM:VPC is a better venue to settle this? — Rhododendrites talk12:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

    ZhangaliY (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log continues uploading non-free files despite multiple warnings, removes deletion templates: [46] [47]. All user's uploads are blatant copyvios. Xunks (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

    ✓ Done. I warned th4e user and deleted 2 uploads. Taivo (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

    Photos uploaded by User:Sly Catalyst

    The user have uploaded a bunch of class photos from en:Ramon Magsaysay (Cubao) High School, that may violate Common's scope for uploading images, besides uploading copyrighted school logos and assigning them with an incorrect license. This user was also seen in en.wiki doing NPOV violations when contributing to the said article. They have been already reported to WP:ANI twice, got blocked for 24 hours in the first report and may be indeffed in the second. -WayKurat (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

    Update: has been indef'ed. Also, I fixed the enwiki link in WayKurat's note. DMacks (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    WayKurat I have notified the user, something that you forgot. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks @DMacks: and @Guido den Broeder: . Since this user has already been indef'ed in en.wiki, can we delete their uploaded photos and block them here as well? -WayKurat (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    That's not how it works, but it may well end that way. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

    User:Elcobbola

    No admin action needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:27, 13 July 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:Elcobbola put a picture I uploaded up for deletion. photo is File:Mea Motu title.jpg. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mea Motu title.jpg. I have made repeated attempts to contact the User with evidence that suggest why It shouldn't be deleted and proof that the photo was taken by myself. However, the user has continually ignore me in both delete requests and in the User Talk page or my own Talk page. I would like to have the delete request removed and an apology from the user for lack of communication. Bennyaha (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

    Just side note I know he is ignoring my messages because I can see him do regular work with other parts of WikiComs via contributions. Bennyaha (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    Bennyaha asked "Can you please see comments I have made regarding this". I did just that, and found no question posed and no response necessitating my input. Notwithstanding that Bennyaha apparently has ignored Commons:But it's my own work! (links to which appear 14 times (!!!) on their talk page) when formulating a reaction, the closing admin will consider comments when the DR has run its course. Bennyaha's impatience is their issue alone; they deserve, and will get, no apology from me. I, however, might expect one for this spurious and bad faith complaint. Эlcobbola talk 21:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

     Oppose Nothing to see here. A deletion request isn't between you and the requester. Other users will show up (like I just did) and take part in the discussion. There are far more images than users, so sometimes it takes a while. However, the file will not be removed until a conclusion to do so is reached, so there is no hurry. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

    Bennyaha can you upload a new version of the image that contains the meta data? These are included in the original file (or an edited version of it) from your phone or a device where you copied it to. Facebook deletes the meta data. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    That I didnt know, that the meta data gets deleted when uploaded to facebook. I have the photo on my phone but it is the edited version as you can see here. Also I mostly upload it to facebook more for storage then anything else. But I can reupload it. Bennyaha (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    I have reuploaded the photo from my phone. Please let me know if that is Suffice. Bennyaha (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Bennyaha: No metadata found.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    Really? Thats annoying, I did take the photo on my phone and reuploaded it from my phone. However I did edit it on my phone and the edited version of the photo was saved separately, and that's the photo I kept. Bennyaha (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    I found a full version of it in my emails and uploaded it separately as a full version. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mea_Motu_Title_full_version.jpg Bennyaha (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Bennyaha: Thanks for that. So it seems that the editing you did on your Samsung Galaxy S9 phone removed the metadata. Please keep that in mind for the future.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose, Bennyaha needs more patience.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose and speedy close Elcobbola acted in good faith with a file they had doubts about. At the end of the day, the uploader is required to show a burden of proof. Bidgee (talk) 00:28, 13 July 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.