Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 99

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


SC12244500

Really unclear what User:SC12244500’s deal is, but two issues:

  1. They keep uploading files with no verifiable source or license.
  2. They upload photographs of random historic houses from the South but mislabel them as belonging to historical figures. I have no idea why they’re doing this, but I’ve asked them to stop, and they’ve persisted.

Can’t tell if the user is trolling or what, but whatever it is, I think they require some admin intervention. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Whatever their deal is, they're clearly not here to contribute to Commons (or, based on their edits there, to enwiki). I've blocked them and deleted some copyvio uploads. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Workwithchrisallen

Workwithchrisallen (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
All of this user's uploads are probable copyvios. They are all photographs of Nick Allen, who appears to be his brother (if his Instagram is to be believed). However, they appear professionally done and many are almost identical to photos taken and owned by Getty Images. At least some of the Team USA photos also appear to have been taken by a photographer for the WBSC. Denniscabrams (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with him? Maybe he is that photographer? Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: I notified the user for Denniscabrams.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Guido den Broeder, I have reached out to him on Instagram and am awaiting a reply but there is no reason to think that he took any of these photos. The Athletics images were almost certainly taken by Ezra Shaw for Getty Images. Denniscabrams (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
If he doesn't reply you could well be correct. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Redseckerl

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

This user has been uploading only personal photos and editing various pages, adding nonsensical text (e.g. in photo descriptions, on the user's talk page, and other pages on the Commons).--Pius (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

They struck me as having a CIR issue.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
That could be a reason, but it's simply to soon for any action. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 Not done. It's too early to block the user. She is warned and that's enough at moment. Taivo (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

User Martwan

All of the images imported by Martwan (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  comes from the copyrighted website of Stall Instruments (https://www.staalinstruments.com/). I warned him but an administrator might want to block this user as he seems to be doing promotional work for that company. All his uploads should be deleted, too.

Pierre cb (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose I see a single upload. Of a logo, not a website. You gave him a vague warning only just now. Where is that promotional work and why should he be punished for it on Commons? Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@Pierre cb: I gave the user proper warnings and notified themher of this section for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. User is warned, all uploads are either deleted or nominated for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: Sorry if my warning was not elaborate, I did not find the proper template for it. As I said, I let to the administrator do the follow-up and I thank Taivo and Jeff G. for that. Pierre cb (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Wildhorse3, extensive copyvio by sockpuppeteer

All of the images uploaded by this user are copyrighted images for which he owns no rights and has maliciously and falsely claimed them as his own creations. The user is a CU confirmed sockpuppeteer (see here), who's sock (User:Sitush7) has also made similar copyvio uploads with false self-attribution.

Let us start with the image on the user page (which the user egregiously says is him), it's of a popular Pakistani actress Nazish Jahangir from her Instagram account posted way back last year. Impersonation is not new to this user as the sockpuppet itself was named after User:Sitush.

Other images have also been similarly scrubbed from all over the internet; and posted under fabricated {{Own}} and {{cc-zero}} tags. To further legitimize claims over these images, he has linked them across enwiki and even created dubious categories/pages/templates here on Commons (page and cat [inc. sub-cats]; templ).

Listing other copyvio images and the places where they have been scrubbed from:

These are the ones where I could verify that there is demonstrable copyvio and the sockpuppeteer has maliciously claimed credit, including as can be seen going as far as to remove watermarks, logos, dubious captions etc. The other images uploaded (i. e. not listed here) by the sockpuppeteer and his socks have also likely been pilfered from social media, websites et al.

All of these images should be deleted, including the pages, cats, temps etc. created by this sockpuppeteer and his socks. Please block the master/his socks and see if a CU brings up more of his socks. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Please notify the user next time as per the notice on the top of this page. I have notified them but next time it is up to you. Bidgee (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The user being a chronic sockpuppeteer, I did not think it was necessary. Gotitbro (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
@Gotitbro: It is always necessary.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done All obvious copyvios deleted, user warned, other images without EXIF nominated. A COM:RFCU could be useful. Yann (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
User is blocked indef. for socking. Yann (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Child porn user

User:뱁부 appears to be an elementary schooler and is uploading dick pics. Please delete immediately and block. Dronebogus (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

As per the notice at the top of this page ”Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead.” Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Deleted by Strakhov, user warned. Yann (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Extremely uncivil user

User told me to go kill myself here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Nude_Chubby_Male_In_The_Oregon_Forest.jpg&diff=674920684&oldid=674889781

I might not be super chill here either, admittedly, but jeez I think that’s crossing a line into insta-block territory. Their only upload is a bad naked selfie (the source of the argument) so they aren’t a net positive contributor either. Dronebogus (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed - clearly not here to contribute. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

John.Guz

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done All files deleted. It seems they stopped uploading after your warning. Yann (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Zbvazquez

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

User:Vsa111

Vsa111 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

 Not done While the licenses are wrong, files from the government of India may be under {{GODL-India}}. One file from a State government deleted. Yann (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

MD SHAJAN KHAN

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Promotional activities by related users

This group of users are all promoting a company called Mayflower-Plymouth as well as its CEO and employees. In addition, there are lots of personal family photos of the CEO mixed in.

It all appears outside of COM:SCOPE, so I created a bunch of deletion discussions ...

... but ran out of steam before getting through them all. There may still be other accounts as well. Marbletan (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Marbletan: Could you please fill in a request for checkuser? I deleted all files. These accounts may be blocked for socking or advertising. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rubennichea. Marbletan (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Now all blocked by Fitindia or I. Yann (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Modern primat

Dear Wikimedia Commons community,

We are supporting the projects voluntarily. We are here to build a valuable online encyclopedia. So, we must block and ignore harmful users. Modern primat is a user from Turkish Wikipedia. He was banned for uncivil behavior and violation of some policies. This week his file was deleted by an administrator: @4nn1l2. His main purpose is trolling as the admin stated here. After the deletion, he harassed the admin with this message. Then, I warned him, he replied inappropriately.

In addition, (Let's move back to March 2022), I nominated one of his files, after this he replied with a link which includes a video which was about porn. This user violates policies and trolls the contributors. Yours sincerely, Kadı Message 18:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

[1] Kadı Message 18:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
harrassing??? i expressed my concern about my file. thats it. i think admin should write why he deleted it with better explanation instead just write "trolling content".
"""His main purpose is trolling as the admin stated here.""" no. i cant believe that...... my file, literally, didnt break any rules. but, in source(youtube), yes, bad things are there. but in my file(commons), there was nothing. so, it is not trolling. also, how this is trolling? calling people "troll" is direct violation of policies. you always calling me with that.
stop that, in here you also stated "his main purpose is that". im just tired. why are you doing that?
inaprororotiley? what? it is just a laugh! laugh!!!
porn? what??? it was never about a porn. never. it is funny montage. yes, there is "porn" at the start. but it is not directly mentioning it in whole time. you keep trolled me with keep nominating my file with not enough reason(you did put a source to show i uploaded my file from there. but actually that source took my file. and you wrote "this user stole this file from here" .image is describing it. it is very easy to see and you still did it. obvious trolling activity!!!) and i just send this. you either get laugh and move on, or get mad and report. there is no purpose of attacking. video is here, where is porn??? "about porn" haha: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8o24X2OURY Modern primat (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%96zel:G%C3%BCnl%C3%BCk/block&page=User%3AModern_primat Modern primat (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Modern primat, you should never talk about users' religion and nationality on Commons. Never. That won't be tolerated again. Secondly, calling some content as an example of trolling is not the same as calling a person a troll. Of course, if the person keeps posting trolling content several times, then we may come to the understanding that they are indeed a troll. Do not upload trolling content to Commons again. Commons is not for having some fun. We only host content that have educational value. Turkish azan does not have any educational value. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
wait a moment.. i can understand(actually not) why you deleted my file. because source is bad(file not contain anything that bad). ok, good...
but.... HOW you can decide turkish azan does not have educational value??? literally, it has information on articles! there is article: w:tr:Türkçe ezan . it definetly educatinoal..... you are wrong. Modern primat (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

User Cheigrrooo

Cheigrrooo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploads likely copyrighted photos of personalities of sports and politics. All have been marked for deletion and he was informed of the fact. It may be just ignorance of the copyright rules but an administrator should keep an eye on him. Pierre cb (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Nikita Bondarenko 24

Nikita Bondarenko 24 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) : new user uploading personal photos with no META in self-promotion. Photos should be deleted. Pierre cb (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Warned, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Finanzamilano and Corriere Economia

Sockpuppets Finanzamilano (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and Corriere Economia (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  are uploading self-promotional thumb size photos of Sebastiano Provenzano from copyrighted website (see https://www.google.com/search?q=Sebastiano+Provenzano&rlz=1C1PRFI_enCA828CA828&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2jZ-snZL5AhV4EVkFHesnC_YQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1600&bih=1057). All his uploads should be deleted and he should be warned by an Administrator. Pierre cb (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Same thing should apply to Corriere Economia (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . Pierre cb (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Pierre cb: Warning sent, all files tagged.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
OK Pierre cb (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao

The user uploads lots of duplicate at Category:Collections of the Odense City Museums (Check Category:Duplicate and thanks User:Don-vip for tapping them). The user have to comply with these terms set by User:Pi.1415926535. Previously warned at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 95#User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao for violating duplicate uploads and poor categorization but seems nothing have improved. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Ser Amantio suddenly blank the file and added {{Bad name}}. IMO it is a kind of disruptive action. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I didn't intend to blank the page. I was trying to put some kind of template on it to mark it for deletion, or redirection, but not being familiar with Commons templates (as I don't use them often) I appear to have picked the wrong one. I left it be because a.) I didn't want to cause even more damage to the page, and b.) it was late, it had been a long day, and I didn't have the brain power to give it more thought. I'm traveling, and so will be away from the computer much of the day, but I will try and tag the duplicates for removal today. As to how they slipped in...I'm sorry about that, I did check the batches as I was uploading them, but apparently I glossed over a few images because I thought they looked similar, not identical, at smaller scale. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
You should notice that after you tap {{Bad name}} on the file, then it appears "Please do not use the deprecated template {{Bad name}} for file", and you should fix it as soon as possible. Being tired is not an excuse of blanking a file. You caused User:AntiCompositeBot to incorrectly tape {{No license since}} on the file. IMO you're doing more damage to the page. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I'm indeed triaging the files but I think a small amount of files are concerned. It's not easy to spot the duplicates when you're not aware of the problem: it only concerns the pictures taken by the museum where several pieces with different inventory numbers are photographed (for example: a broken sword where each piece has its own inventory number, but the museum took a single photograph of all fragments together and uploaded it several times on Flickr). I don't see the import as problematic: I would rather blame the museum for creating the duplicates at first, then mediawiki for allowing upload of identical files, then flickr2commons to not checking this during the upload, rather than Ser Amantio. I would probably have missed these duplicates as well if I would have done the import myself. vip (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@Don-vip: It looks like it's something like 80 or 90 out of a very large batch, 5,000 or so. (Unless something else turns up and I'm not aware.) I did a quick check last night, and don't believe I found any further duplicates. (Could be wrong, though.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking through your recent mass uploads, I see hundreds of files with identical filenames and useless and/or identical descriptions (You will provide unique, descriptive filenames for each image), numerous files with only minor differences (you will only upload images with educational value distinct from others in the set, and almost all with only a single category (You will properly categorize all images, using the most specific categories available). It is clear that you have violated the terms that you agreed to, that you have learned nothing from your past warnings, and that you lied when you said I will confine myself in future to self-created uploads.. I have removed your Flickr2Commons access for this continued abuse. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO this should be done by another admin. Matlin (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Redseckerl

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

Whole string of nonsense, useless uploads, mis-description. Rollback and delete, warn and maybe block. Sorry, no time to engage fruitlessly myself. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Already under discussion at #User:Redseckerl above. If Pius had notified the user on their user talk page as instructed above, you would have seen that.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
There are further uploads (same issue) since the thread above was closed too. Andy Dingley (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
One week block. Feel free to nominate any upload for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Redseckerl requested unblock. Administrators, please review the block. Taivo (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request has been declined by Эlcobbola. Ellywa (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Czeraka

Czeraka (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  This new user uploads small size photos with META that seems to indicate that they are captures, not his own. Many have been flagged as needing confirmed source or deleted. An administrator should keep an eye of this user. Pierre cb (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Mosbatho

Edit warring on File:ZSU-37-2 Yenisei.jpg, TLDR he's continuously nominating the image for deletion over an issue that was already unequivocally resolved. Sxbbetyy (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This is no edit war. I have just reverted the illegal removal of a DR tag by User:Sxbbetyy who declares a regular open DR as closed which is not true. I did not "continuously nominate" this file. This DR must be closed by an admin and not by a user with less than 100 edits. This issue is not solved anyway and the licensing issues are not solved. I tried to explain User:Sxbbetyy to wait for other opinions. I have tried not to escalate the discussion but this was no success. BTW: I was not informed by User:Sxbbetyy that they bring me up here. --Mosbatho (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
"This DR must be closed by an admin and not by a user with less than 100 edits." Idk where you got the idea that deletion requests have to be closed by an admin or a tenured user, the page on the matter says nothing of the sort (in fact it even says that if the change is uncontroversial and you're aware of how the system works that its fine for any normal user to close one).
"This issue is not solved anyway and the licensing issues are not solved." In a copyright dispute, idk how much more uncontroversial and definite of a verdict you can get beyond the literal law in question stating the image in dispute is in the public domain. But I've already told you as much in the deletion request thread, yet you still decided to act this way.
"I did not "continuously nominate" this file." This can easily be proven false by looking at the edit history for said image. If you're trying to claim that that behavior isn't edit warring then I think you need to look up the definition of edit warring. Sxbbetyy (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose DR was incorrectly closed by the uploader, declaring keep against consensus. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there something controversial about what the determination for it is? Do you think the law I cited is false? I'm just getting very confused now about what the entire point of that deletion request was if the very reason it was made was corrected, then even further clarified when challenged again. The deletion request page is pretty self explanatory to be honest, idk how you can come to any other conclusion beyond "this topic is concluded, the image is no longer in dispute". Sxbbetyy (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Noel Jarloc

Noel Jarloc (talk · contribs) continues to upload copyright violations or images of earthquake damages that are not taken by himself and come from unfree, "all rights reserved" sources. This user must be stopped. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

 Info I already warned him about that, but he seems to haven't learned a lesson. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 1 month. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

User Лобачев Владимир's constant purposeful abuse of COM:NOTHOST rule in order to distort other countries national symbols, flags

Hello, user Лобачев Владимир is purposefully abusing the COM:NOTHOST rule in order to distort other countries national symbols, flags. I created a nomination to delete these files, but he clearly requires some kind of blocking as he will not stop peacefully. He regularly uploads files without any educational value and this way pollutes Wikimedia Commons and other Wiki projects with them. Please block this user from uploading new files or at least topic-block him from uploading files related with Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, and Belarus. I'm not concerned about his uploads related with Russia, but he clearly is unable to be neutral in topics related with Russia's neighboring countries and purposefully tries to do harm to them regularly. His constant harmful activity makes me believe that he is a paid worker of the Internet Research Agency or a similar Russian institution. Seeing what is happening in Ukraine, such users with harmful intentions towards neighboring countries identities should not be tolerated here. Pinging other users who also noticed his harmful activity (they are Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, etc.): @Микола Василечко: , @Hoa binh: , @Ke an: , @Gdarin: (Polish Wikipedia admin), @Paelius: , @Cukrakalnis: @Nadzik: , @Dragovit: . Moreover, there were strong concerns that user Лобачев Владимир is also performing harmful activity related with Moldova, Romania, so I will also ping Romanian users to raise their arguments here: @Anonimu: , @Super Dromaeosaurus: , therefore probably topic-ban should be also applied to Moldovan, Romanian topics. This user is a widespread problem of the Wiki projects. Please act against this mass pollution. -- Pofka (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the participant on the issue of the succession of the historical heritage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. And that's probably why he decided to delete the files I uploaded. Over the past half a year, he periodically exposes my files for deletion, indicating everywhere the main reason COM:NOTHOST. Today alone, he re-submitted 43 files (Commons:Deletion requests/Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир (continues his dirty work)). Seeing that there were few chances for deletion, he decided to write here in parallel.

He is probably harassing me for political reasons, as he regularly pings his like-minded friends so that they speak negatively about me.

I'm not concerned about his uploads related with Russia, but he clearly is unable to be neutral in topics related with Russia's neighboring countries and purposefully tries to do harm to them regularly. His constant harmful activity makes me believe that he is a paid worker of the Internet Research Agency or a similar Russian institution. (Pofka)

Please protect me from unfounded accusations and persecution. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Лобачев Владимир, using this chance to ask you please not to engage in behavior like this [2]. You added a false claim that opposes the sourcing the description of the file already had. Illogical. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Лобачев Владимир: It is more than absurd when you accuse me that these users I pinged here are some kind of friends of mine when mostly they are not from Lithuania, but from Poland, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania. They are well-established users with lots of edits in their respective languages wiki projects, English Wikipedia, and Wikimedia Commons. The fact that multiple users from the Post-Soviet states and post-Warsaw Pact states complains about your edits, uploads only proves how widespread internationally your harmful actions are. Consequently, there clearly is no other way to ensure your actions neutrality here than to block from uploading and editing topics related with the Post-Soviet states and post-Warsaw Pact states. -- Pofka (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Agree. Such persons like Лобачев Владимир compromising the credibility of Wikipedia by uploading fakes and faking histories of the countries from a very strange esoteric panslavistic prospective. Its a serious damage to the reputation of wikipedia. -- Ke an (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you believe this constitutes normal contributing to the project? [3]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)\
Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with the history of Moldova to assess the correctness, but I don't really see any problem here. I've checked the file history and the mentioned edit was undo by you once without any signs of edit war. Moreover, technically I find these two drawings quite similar, so I don't see anything abnormal in adding {{Derived from}}. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
This user believes that the red and yellow medieval flag of Moldavia is fake and that it is derived from the modern coat of arms of Romania (not viceversa, which would be logical). So they added this template even though the file is adequately sourced. Not for saying that this isn't even how the derived template works, it's only to be used if one Commons file was made from another Commons file, not if what they represent have a chronological order. And the file of the medieval flag is here since 2008 [4]; the one this user was trying to say it was derived from is uploaded, by them, since 2021 [5]. It was a misleading attempt. And I got many other examples. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok. I got your point, and I agree that {{Derived from}} should not be added to files uploaded earlier than a supposed source file. Still the only provided example (without any edit war or some other adverse consequences involved other users, like Pofka did several times, what is described in this request Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Pofka: falsification of the file name) doesn't make me believe that there is a real problem in here and that the administrator actions are somehow required. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if any administrative action should be applied out of this report, but I do know that this user is often disruptive and that it is no wonder that so many reports have been opened against them. Take a look at this [6]. This user opposed my rename of the article "Moldovan-language schools in Transnistria" to "Romanian-language schools in Transnistria" because for them it was like calling Moldovan as Romanian (which has no problem as the language does not exist, but whatever). They missed the point that those schools suffer harassment from the Transnistrian government (that's the point of that article existing) because they said they taught Romanian, not Moldovan, and in the Latin alphabet. Well, it took a lengthy discussion in which I was supported by two other users which ended with this user stopping to give responses. Then, I tried to apply the change to Wikidata, and I was being reverted again by this user even though he had stopped discussing about it in the English Wikipedia [7]. I had to again repeat what I had stated in that discussion before and it had the same end: they stopped replying. And I still have more examples. The behaviour of this user is problematic, even if possibly not at 100% of times, and one day, they are going to get sanctioned. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Maybe your don't know, but my whole country (Belarus) is under Russian occupation now, which is quite more serious that any issues of Moldova. That's why I have no time and intention to go deep in the question of schools language in Transnistria, sorry about it. But what I technically see here is that you're trying to transfer the conflict from other projects to the Wikimedia Commons. In my opinion, that's not a right way for solving such conflicts. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't attempting to get you to go deep in the question of schools language in Transnistria. I was attempting to show you the disruptive modus operandi of this user. Considering this is a report on said user, I would assume it's relevant. By the way, that happened in 2021. The problematic behaviour of this user is a long-standing issue.
If you don't like the Transnistrian schools example and want something from Commons, I can show you how this user created a category about the second biggest city of Moldova using a Russian name [8]. Imagine a Lithuanian user in Commons making a category named Category:Coats of arms of Barysavas. It would be clear that such user wouldn't have the best intentions, wouldn't it? I want you to again consider whether Лобачев Владимир engages in normal contributing to Wikimedia projects, and whether it might have caused him so many reports and conflicts with other users or it's only the others' fault. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm totally against giving Russian variants of names to categories related to non-Russian places. At the same time I didn't see any problem in the provided example from the technical point of view. The user created a category with incorrect name and you fixed it. No edit wars, no other users involved, no wasting of someone's time. On the other hand I can give you an example when Pofka started an edit war in order to change the category name related to Belarusian city Navahrudak to Russian variant Novogrudok [9], [10], [11]. Moreover, they did the same thing to category related to Belarusian city Viciebsk (replaced it with Russian form Vitebsk [12]. Meanwhile, in the discussion about Navahrudak User:Лобачев Владимир supported Belarusian form [13], which totally ruins all accusations of him in "Muscovite chauvinism". I can also provide the examples of files uploaded by the user connected with Pofka, where Belarusian names are given in English using forms from lt:Lietuvių kalba: File:CoA Minskas City (from 1592) and Minskas Bishopric from 1798 (Starzyński, 1875).png, File:CoA Minskas Palatinate (Starzyński, 1875).jpg, File:CoA Minskas Palatinate (Starzyński, 1875).png (lt:Minskas for en:Minsk), File:CoA Naugardukas (Starzyński, 1875).png, File:CoA Polockas (Starzyński, 1875).png. And this is very much relevant to what you said above: Imagine a Lithuanian user in Commons making a category named Category:Coats of arms of Barysavas. It would be clear that such user wouldn't have the best intentions, wouldn't it? --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Both sides do not seem to work on finding a consensus. The deletion rules on commons are clear: As long as the file is used it is not to be deleted if there are no copyright or related issues. If the user is adding them to pages on other projects against the local rules, block the user on this project first. If the file in not in use we can discuss a deletion by reviewing the sources. If there are adequate sources the file can stay. If there are no sources and explanation the file might be deleted. But this should definitely be done with proper justifications in the deletion request and not as mass request. --GPSLeo (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
    Not sure how you figure that there is room for consensus. Rather, this may be a case for the WMF. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@GPSLeo: "If there are no sources and explanation the file might be deleted." Please check completely neutral statement by the Polish Wikipedia administrator Gdarin HERE. There is no reason to not believe in such authoritative wiki personality. He said that all these files are worthless. If this problematic user will not be stopped, he will create even more and more pollution everywhere. -- Pofka (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. I do not see actions against COM:NOTHOST of user Лобачев Владимир, to the contrary, several of their uploads are used on the projects. As I advised several times now on the DR, the conflict you seem to have is related to the correctness of uploads. This has to be discussed at the various Wikipedias, e.g. Russian, Polish etc. In addition, Лобачев Владимир is not blocked on any of the Wikimedia projects, so apparently their work is sufficiently trusted on those Wikipedias. Ellywa (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Less than a year ago, they were blocked from editing a category in Wikidata [14]. I want to question your claim about their work being trusted in Wikimedia projects. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
The decision 'not done' seems a bit hasty. Commons has some responsibility, too. If these images are only used to mislead readers (rather than e.g. to demonstrate that such activities exist) the fact that they are in use carries little weight. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I've gone through a lot of Лобачев Владимир's uploads and the various discussions related to them. While I agree some of their interpretations of national flags and symbols are inaccurate, not all their uploads are and there's zero evidence what inaccuracy exists is purposeful or done to the level of making the images completely useful. Obviously most things on Commons aren't 1/1 recreations of the original. Plus like I've said in other discussions, most of this disagreement comes from Wikipedia and therefore should be solved there. Having someone blocked for something that isn't an issue and doesn't violate the guidelines isn't an effective way to solve a disagreement on another project. It seems like Лобачев Владимир hasn't had any major problems on Wikipedia either. So this really comes off like Pofka being unwilling to get the point or listen to feedback more then it does a legitimate complaint. Really, they should just drop the stick about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

 Support User is mispresenting own work as genuine symbols of an actual former country while they contain major differences, and tries to gun down the opposition when caught. Reminiscent of similar attempts to rewrite history such as this one. None of these images have any educational value. The fact that they are in use is no evidence to the contrary here, as they would not be in use if they had acceptable names and descriptions like 'fantasy variation'. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

EnglandMeadows digitally upscaling historical images

EnglandMeadows (talk · contribs) has received three talk page messages this year about their damaging use of some kind of digital upscaling software and wider COM:OVERWRITE issues, to no response. They're continuing to apply the software to historical images without declaring this, eg. File:John Quincy Adams by Charles Osgood.jpg being "cropped and fixed" to twice its resolution a few days ago, showing the software's telltale increase in detail around the eyes and mouth while the clothing and background remain unchanged. Historical images should not be replaced with what some software algorithm thinks they might have looked like. Lord Belbury (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

If this needs a suggested course of action to get some responses, I would say the user should be restricted from overwriting images, if that's possible, or blocked if it's all or nothing (if only to get their attention, in the event that they have not seen any of their talk page messages this year). --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the user from the file namespace. AI upscaled images are highly questionable on Commons in any event, and overwriting existing files with them is not acceptable. Ignoring talk page messages is also not acceptable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I am ready to respond, sorry for being late. I apologize for upscaling and will never overwrite a file ever again, only uploading from now on. I am also sorry that I do not check my talk page. --EnglandMeadows

@EnglandMeadows: I am hesitant to unblock you immediately. Why did you ignore numerous talk page messages and only respond when blocked? Do you understand why AI upscaled issues are an issue, and do you plan to continue uploading them? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Unsolved DRs

Hey, please have a look at this: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Butko. Commons is a totally uncensored platform. Why is this deletion request still open? Why arent there more pro votes? 2A02:810D:4AC0:3A8C:D989:DFEC:F363:7F7C 06:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Debjyoti Gorai

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You have contradicted yourself by applying website rules over GODL-India. Please provide justification for this image and check the website policies here. It is applied GODL-India. Now check the PM image and the same thing GODL-India is applied there. But the website from where the image was taken mentions this policy. Again targeted harassment against me.
Then also please say why this image is also present. Are you people contradicting yourself or else you don't know where to apply GODL-india and where not?
You misread the entire paragraph. It clearly says "All copyrights are reserved with the Lok Sabha Secretariat. The material listed may be reproduced without formal permission for the purposes of non-commercial research, private study and for criticism, review and news reporting provided that the material is appropriately attributed." The image uploaded here follows the above line, not the line that comes after. And for the third-line members, portraits are not up for parliament debates and image is not from ancillary publications. So this one "Under Section 2 (k) of the Copyright Act (No. 14 1975), the copyright for the reproduction of any material from the debates and ancillary publications vests with the Lok Sabha Secretariat" doesn't apply here. Debjyoti Gorai (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Just want to add that the editor Debjyoti Gorai has earlier made repeated attempts of copyright violation and has engaged in harrasment of editors like admin Yann and others. For reference see recent past complaint/discussion [15] and block discussion [16](which the editor has now removed so that no one finds their improper editing history) Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Misleading when discussion happens one way from the side of administrators who have high editing powers you don't expect normal people drag discussions far long. Discussions doesn't happen from normal people when editors like that shut people like me down on the pretext on so called "personal attack" and "harassment". The editor above for example @Run n Fly refuses to face me in an open discussion because he doesn't know copyright laws, website policies of govt or state govt agencies of India and how they apply to each thing. That's what I want actual staff of Wikipedia Commons to interfere and curb powers of so called editor administrators and give everyone the exact same power to hold discussions. Still now the editor is not facing me and holding discussions.Debjyoti Gorai (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
UPDATE: The image was deleted without having a discussion at all. It is extremely frustrating to have any discussion with these admins. It looks like that they can do whatever they want. Debjyoti Gorai (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support block This is itself an open discussion and I have already explained everything wrong doing you are continuing here in Commons Wikiproject. Please do not beat around the bush and increase the drama more further. Also, statements like That's what I want actual staff of Wikipedia Commons to interfere and curb powers of so called editor administrators and give everyone the exact same power to hold discussions. is totally misleading because your are proved to be wrong in your explanation based on facts and polices. You always try to arm-twist facts. Remember Wikimedia projects is community based project where consensus plays a major role. Run n Fly (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support block. Based on the warnings that were given, the two week block, and the continued drama upon returning, this editor seems intent on spending more time on copyright fighting people rather than being productive. The fact that their twentieth upload hadn't yet been summarily deleted as a copyright violation is not something to be proud of. Spend a few minutes realizing that no one cares that much about your contributions to deal with your drama. Even if you are finally right, no one trusts you after a load of nonsense and not one hint of introspection. en:Wikipedia:Wikilawyering does not help your cause. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    How can someone be productive if his contributions are deleted? What if the admins misquote the policies? What if the action taken against me is partial? I have been in Wikipedia for a long time i.e. 7 years than these admins. I know more about copyright laws because I have an actual job regarding copyright policies. 'Spend a few minutes realizing that no one cares that much about your contributions to deal with your drama.' is a personal attack against me. "Even if you are finally right, no one trusts you after a load of nonsense and not one hint of introspection." will only prove the irresponsiveness of the Commons admins. I am well productive on the Wiki. Threatening me with a block will achieve nothing. If a correct discussion is not held then it will prove that Commons is a place run by irresponsible people and is not safe as Commons claims to be. I have a learning experience here that it's useless to contribute here because actions taken here are partial and are not free and fair. If that's the case I will also not upload my own images taken with my own camera too because some people just don't understand copyright laws. Reading copyright laws printed on paper will not make someone an expert. A person needs to understand words, phrases and even punctuation marks. If there is a dispute which one will override and which one will not. There are even more things to consider. In fact, this is an actual job for me in real life and I am much more experienced in it but people here aren't. If this behaviour continues from the admin side then I will just stop contributing here at once. I am extremely disappointed and felt harassed and hounded. I would have deleted my Commons account after this encounter but it's not even possible to delete individual accounts. I would be emailing Wikipedia staff about this experience though just as feedback. Thanking you Debjyoti Gorai (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    Correction: this editor seems intent on spending more time on drama in general rather than being productive. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support block Since this user has already been blocked and warned by multiple administrators about their behavior. Like Ricky81682 said, they clearly lack the ability to be introspective and listen to feedback. So there's zero reason to continue giving them chances to remedy things. Might as well save everyone the time of the more drama that is currently and will continue to happen by blocking them. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    Introspection come when someone is actually wrong. I did introspection for two images which I uploaded very early because I was wrong for that images. But the rest I stand with facts and with correct knowledge about their copyright policy. I am well experienced person regarding Indian copyright laws and their applications because it's part of my actual job. Just look at your statement @Adamant1 and Ricky81682's statement. What would someone say? Isn't it a one-sided discussion? You responded me with blocking me. Commons just wasn't same about 5-6 years ago. Every person was well respected and accounted for. There were healthy and open discussions based on facts. Both sides had to listen to one another. Today commons have changed a lot. I tired to argue too because you people never listen. So I has stopped uploading any contributions on Commons as I have replied to Ricky81682. Thanking youDebjyoti Gorai (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Introspection come when someone is actually wrong. I mean, not really. Someone can do self-analysis whenever. This isn't really about right or wrong anyway though. You can be 100% in the right about the copyright thing, but still be wrong in how you went about resolving (or really in this case failing to resolve) the disagreement about it. So who's "correct" is really relative. I guess it mostly comes down to what hill you want to die on. Some people just snap after being a contributor for so long and repeatedly dealing with minor issues that never really get resolved. In my experience blocks seem to be the best way to deal things in such cases. As they give the person time to disengage and re-prioritize. I've had it happen myself a few times and it always helped. That's life. If you can't handle things in a reasonable way, then go take a time out. Sorry. I don't know what to tell you. In all honesty there's a good chance I wouldn't have supported the block if you hadn't of repeatedly gone off about how people should listen to you because your a well experienced person regarding Indian copyright law. Appeals to authority just come off to me as super pompous to me. Especially since it appears that your not even that experienced. Maybe use that as a lesson for next time, or don't. Either way, Good luck in your future endeavors. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support block due to inability to understand the real problem here ("How can someone be productive if his contributions are deleted?") Also given this which was uploaded as "own work" I really hope that "I have an actual job regarding copyright policies" is not true. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Mateusz Konieczny was a healthy discussion held before nominating for deletion any contribution? a BIG NO! Was I allowed to respond appropriately with facts? NO. I was well aware what I uploaded. I am just tired to argue because some won't listen. I have already stopped contributions. It made me even angrier when someone deleted my own image taken from my own phone camera. Not a single discussion was held. Debjyoti Gorai (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    If you are sure that it was not a blatant copyright violation as described by deleting admin, use COM:UNDELETE Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Mateusz Konieczny I am not fighting for that logo and other two images which I have uploaded was wrong. For other images it needs an open discussion COM:UNDELETE will not work since admins are misquoting the policies that's where the problem lies. COM:UNDELETE would work for some images but for others it won't work. Yes it's my job and you will be amazed if you faced me real life regarding my knowledge in this field. Yes I will try the above method Thanking you for atleast listening to me. Debjyoti Gorai (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Also claims above to have a job, but claimed in this edit earlier today at 07:39 (UTC) to be an intern.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes I claimed earlier too when this problem arised. I just added to my info to make people known as I thought it was necessary. I didn't added earlier because I hoped it wouldn't happen again. But it happened again. Generally I am not open about this things. I am extremely a private person regarding my identity. I removed my email too from he info page.Debjyoti Gorai (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
A tip @Debjyoti Gorai: your e-mail is still visible from history. To remove them contact Commons:Oversighters immediately and never disclose personal details in any wiki projects like English Wikipedia, Simple Wikipedia etc for privacy reasons. Run n Fly (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Info Holdings

Info Holdings (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploads promotional logos, thumbs photos of sport and politician for partisan purpose (e.g. File:President, Cyril Ramaphosa.jpg). All uploads should be deleted and user should be warned. Pierre cb (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: All uploads deleted, user warned. --Achim55 (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

User:JIP

JIP (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is continually miscategorizing product images to categories of locations, and locations by year. Example of a whisky bottle from Scotland categorised to a Finnish city, Lohja. And it's not the only product image uploaded by the user in that category.

This "rule" is unique to this user, as no other location categories contain images of mass-produced products, even less of products foreign to the location. If a person browses the location categories in the attempt of finding relevant images about the landscape of that location, I'm sure they do not expect or desire photos of random foreign products that has nothing to do with the place, but only happened to be consumed/photographed there.

User has been asked to cease the habit, but has ignored the message and continues to miscategorize product images.

User also has a long habit of uploading product images that are taken down on copyright grounds, without any indication of stopping. —Nelg (talk, contribs) 16:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nelg: Please inform users about such threads as instructed above. I've seen your question on their talkpage, but not AN/U notice. I've done this for you. Thanks, A09090091 (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I have previously been categorising images of food and beverages to locations in Finland because that's where the pictures were taken at. For example, the picture of Ardbeg Wee Beastie was taken in Lohja as that's where the whisky bottle was and that's where I was. I didn't understand I was not supposed to do this. I was told to stop categorising images of food and beverages to Finnish locations, so I stopped. If you look at my latest uploads you'll see that any images of food and beverages don't have any categories related to locations in Finland except "Finland photographs taken on (date)". Am I supposed to stop using the Finland photograph categories too? If I am, then I'll do so.
Furthermore, about images of copyrighted products, for example Category:Gin is full of photographs of copyrighted gin bottles uploaded by many users. How are these different from the images I had uploaded and which were deleted because of copyright reasons? JIP (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Tranzmen

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Jack Kingsley Israel is not registered on Commons. What's the main account here? Yann (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Sorry, I can't remember. Perhaps you can fish for his name or photos in deleted pages or images.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Pofka: falsification of the file name

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

In the book of the Belarusian heraldist Anatol Tsitou Геральдыка Беларусі / Heraldry of Belarus there is an image of the military flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania of 1764-92. User:Kazimier Lachnovič uploaded it to Commons and named it File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg accordingly. However, User:Pofka independently decided that the heraldist Anatol Tsitou and Kazimier Lachnovič did not understand anything about heraldry and history, and that this was not the flag of the entire principality, but only of its small region. He asked to rename the file to File:Flag of the Slonim County (1764- 92).jpg. User:Richardkiwi did it. Please return the name in accordance with the source and warn Pofka about the inadmissibility of falsifying names. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

See also another case of falsification of the file name. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
It is funny when a Belarusian user who do not hesitate to call Lithuanians with adjectives such as Samogitian rubbish (see his statements here: 1, 2, 3, etc.) want to dictate what is right and what is wrong in Lithuanian affairs. It is Kazimier Lachnovič who is causing confusion and mislead other users. -- Pofka (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to let Pofka waste my time instead of contributing to the project, but I should make one remark. The statement above is lie. I didn't call lt:Lietuviai Samogitian rubbish, this adjective was used for nationalistic (more precise chauvinistic) ideas, that Pofka shares and trying to push in every Wikimedia project, which is quite clear from the provided diffs. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
It's still not a really good-faithed remark. It's as dismissing Лобачев Владимир's actions for being "Muscovite chauvinistic rubbish". Doesn't sound too kind. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I believe that in the Wikimedia Commons adepts of both Samogitian or Muscovite chauvinistic rubbish can work (see Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view), unless they 1) spread blatant lie (calumny) about other user, 2) mislead other users in order to undermine normal functioning of the project, 3) harassing other users to prevent them from normal contributing to the project. All of that is what Pofka is doing now. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Лобачев Владимир obviously. Pofka also gotten into it with me in deletion discussions a few times and acted less then Steller in the process. Outside of that they are one of the main subjects of what like 3 currently open complaints? They have also been unwilling to deal with this on Wikipedia even though multiple people have asked them to. All of that is a problem. Or to put it another way, 'problems'. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah. Pofka disagreed with you sometime about something. Got it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with Pofka disagreeing with me. I'm not OK with the persistent, disparaging way they went about it though. It's not like I'm the one that started these ANI complaints and I only participated after it obvious the dispute wasn't going to be resolved through other avenues. I would have been fine with Pofka if they hadn't of gone off on the anti-Russian talking points and tried to resolve things on Wikipedia's end though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
So you have provided no evidence for your allegation that Pofka 'keeps running into problems and being reported'. In reality we have Pofka reporting a problem with one user's uploads, like they're expected to do. You're shooting the messenger. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
"In reality we have Pofka reporting a problem with one user's uploads." Where in the message your responding to did I say anything about Pofka's report or otherwise insinuate that I supported this because of him opening it? We also have Pofka being reported twice in the meantime. I've provided multiple issues I have with them and none of my issues have anything to do with him reporting Геральдыка Беларусі. Like I told Super Dromaeosaurus, I'd fully support sanctioning Геральдыка Беларусі if their actions were at all comparable and I still think they need to drop the stick about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
These two reports are revenge reports by the user that Pofka reported, just like that user cast a revenge !vote to get one of my categories deleted, and there is nothing else. So your allegation that Pofka 'keeps running into problems and being reported' is blatantly false. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
"There's a reason this user keeps running into problems and being reported." Yeah, reminds me of another user. However, it seems it doesn't matter in their case. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I assume your talking about Лобачев Владимир. If so, I said they should drop the stick about it. So in no way am I acting like their have zero responsibility, but you can't sanction someone just for uploading some amateurish flag drawings and that's mostly all I see them being accused of doing. I'd totally support sanctioning Лобачев Владимир if you can point out where they repeatedly targeted Pofka's uploads and/or repeatedly disparaged them for being Lithuanian though. I haven't seen it though. But sure, let's ban people for uploading slightly amateurish fan art. Sounds reasonable. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how is it acceptable for a user to spread their fan arts throughout several Wikimedia projects. I think that's far more harmful for the projects than Pofka crossing the line with their way of speaking. Pofka has had an aggressive tone, and perhaps that should be sanctioned. But Лобачев Владимир adding these images to pages on several Wikipedias is simply worse. As I said on the deletion discussion, deleting these files (not necessarily 100% of them) is the most efficient way of getting rid of this problem. The user could also be warned by an administrator here and told to keep fictitious tags on their fictitious works and promise not to attempt to spread them as legitimate to other projects. But he should somehow be sanctioned. This is simply not acceptable. It's the equivalent of creating hoaxes in Wikipedia. I don't understand how have you focused more on Pofka's actions instead. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
If a respected heraldic source says one thing about an image, then that is what the file and its description are usually called. If some participant believes that the heraldist made a mistake, then is the one who uploaded it to blame? And does the user have the right to correct the authors of Wikimedia Commons publications by removing the original name and original description? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Лобачев Владимир adding these images to pages on several Wikipedias is simply worse. I don't disagree and if this was an ANI complaint on one of those Wikipedia's I'd probably support sanctioning him for his edits. But, and it's a huge but, this isn't Wikipedia. It should go without saying that it's not within our remit to sanction users for things they do on other projects. That said, one of the reasons I've been so adamant about Pofka resolving this on Wikipedia is because I'd like to see him stop posting the images in random articles. Again though, that's our thing to deal with. Otherwise it just comes off like forum shopping or whatever. Plus it won't do crap if he's blocked from Commons because he can just upload the files to Wikipedia and you'll end up having to deal with him there eventually anyway. I don't think you or Pofka have really thought this out though.
I don't understand how have you focused more on Pofka's actions instead I'm not going to take a stance on edits Лобачев Владимир made on other projects that I've had nothing to do with. Whereas, with Pofka the behavior took place on Commons and in discussions that I participated in. So I'm fine having an opinion in that case. It's ridiculous to treat me like I shouldn't have an opinion about comments that Pofka's made in discussions that I was involved in on Commons unless I also take a stance on edits made by Лобачев Владимир to ru.Wikipedia or whatever that I have literally nothing to do with. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Treck08

This user commented an edit I made at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Warsaw Ghetto in color - Film 1942.webm with "Summary: A German is trying to sow mistrust against the declaration of the legal department of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, only to delete a document about nazi-stuff. And you are calling this “think with my own head”. Interesting." I don't think I need to tolerate such a thinly veiled accusation of nazism, anti-semitism or whatever this user is actually trying to imply. --Rosenzweig τ 21:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Please tell me if any of these statements is wrong:
a) You went to delete the mentioned file directly after our first discussion on Commons:Deletion_requests/File:UNRA_sl.jpg, where you want to delete a nazi-related file (on wikipedia/wikimedia since 2012, without problem, used on 13 articles). We never met before.
b) You are German.
c) You are trying to sow mistrust against the declaration of the legal department of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: “Film Provenance: The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum purchased this from the Bundesarchiv in Berlin, Germany in April 2002. [...] Copyright: Public Domain”.
d) You want to delete the file with nazi-stuff.
e) You are calling this “think with my own head”.
f) I never said any word of “accusation of nazism, anti-semitism”. That was you, not me. --Treck08 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 Comment His nationality makes no stand in such debates and could be thought like every German is a Nazi. COM:CARES applies and such rule overcomes some what themed deletions (ie. multiple DRs of a single uploader). What you refer in point A ("without problem, used on 13 articles") is not appropriate: COM:INUSE covers only files that were DR-ed on basis of COM:PS; and files with not clear copyright status can be challenged anytime. A09090091 (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't realize, that calling Rosenzweig a German “could be thought like every German is a Nazi”. So I apologize for calling Rosenzweig a German. --Treck08 (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Triplec85

Is there a way to revert the user's edits at [17] and [18]. Also, I don't think they should remove discussion templates from categories they created themselves nor close category discussions. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. This is a missunderstanding. I corrected the categorization about Category:Streets in Zaberfeld from buildings to "infrastructure". Then it is correct categorized according to Category:Streets. After this i closed the discussion. Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 12:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
User:Enhancing999 reverted 2 times. I explained him, that after the category is correct now, the problem is solved. Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk |
Yes, you already tried to close the discussion yourself a week ago. Possibly with the same or the opposite conclusion. Surely you think it correct every time.
The problem with you closing discussions with diverging opinions about categories you created is also present at [19] and [20]. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
That's a complete other discussion. A lot of users voted there for "keep" with arguments for it. I had only good intentions in a factual discussion. Regardless of this factual discussion: I've done 400,000 edits worldwide and never had a problem. I'm not linking all your reverts at this point. Why do you attacking me now? -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 13:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I can understand you. Perhaps it would be better if a third person made the final decision to close a discussion. However, I would like to point out that I increasingly have the feeling that there are almost personal problems between you, which is sometimes ridiculous. Maybe we should stick to the content level. And we've already done that in the many, many discussions about the category tree. At some point there has to be an end. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Enhancing999 started the discussion because "Transport building" was not right at Category:Streets in Zaberfeld. I have corrected to "infrastructure". So I worked about problem solving. For this he reverted and start an admin problem against me. If I correct something, am I making a mistake? I don't understand this attack against me. I think is a missunderstanding. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 13:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a discussion about the user's closing of discussions, especially after being asked not to do so. I noticed that they tried to attack me personally when we were discussing categories. Incidentally, they hardly seem to open discussions about categories except 3 created by me. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I have proposed these 3 categories for discussion only because I do not find them necessary in terms of content and the assignment is not clear in all cases, see discussion. This does not result in a personal problem. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 14:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to be labeled a perpetrator. You've been attacking me for a month wherever you can. You have put 4 categories of mine up for discussion. You reverted a lot of my edits. Please stop attacking me wherever you can. And even if a lot of users arguments with "keep" for something, it doesn't seem to be about the arguments, but only about the opportunity to launch an attack against me. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 13:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@Enhancing999: I say sorry if I did something wrong and would like to get along well with you. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 13:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Can you provide diffs for what you are writing? "You reverted a lot of my edits" (I doubt I reverted any of your edits beyond closures of discussions). " You've been attacking me for a month" (what are you talking about?) "You have put 4 categories of mine up for discussion." (maybe you confuse me with User:Estopedist1 who also tried to discuss a category you created). Enhancing999 (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Edits from me you reverted: [21] (was empty after correct categorization; you want further discussions), [22] (closed discussion, no consensus to change or delete. Most users for keep; you want further discussions), other decisions you don't like, ...
Categories from me you want to discuss: [23] (I corrected the categorization about Streets in Zaberfeld from buildings to infrastructure according to your arguments; you want further discussions), [24], [25]
I cant't find a category i created which User:Estopedist1 started to discuss?! In the other categories i mentioned above he not answered. I think you confuse me with someone else. In this discussion which Estopedist started https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2022/06/Category:Religious_Tradition_in_Austria i worked on solutions. There is no problem you want to create. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 14:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
And i want to repeat: I say sorry if I did something wrong and would like to get along well with you. Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 14:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think your diffs support your comments. If 2 is "a lot" and 1 is "4" maybe. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I posted 3 Categories i created which you started to discuss. (Transport buildings in Zaberfeld, 1 bridge by country, views with 1 bridge) Why do you say 1? In your "Contributions" you can find more than 2 edits from me you reverted. I see at least 4 in the last 6 days. I will not search every revert, because i have no problem with you and i will work at categorization. Are you interested in a good relationship? -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 14:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Correction: you did provide 3 diffs for "4" you mentioned. It's still not clear what you mean with "You reverted a lot of my edits" especially you keep bringing up your self-contradictory closures.
I'm not really interested in a "relationship" with you. I just edit here, currently categories about bridges and railway stations, as many others do and with whom we exchange ideas about the way to do that. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree. We all try to follow: "Please do not make major changes to this category, nor categories and pages related to this discussion, or remove this notice until the discussion has been closed.". Just closing the discussion because we disagree wouldn't be helpful. Are you interested in participating too? Can we count on you not to close any discussions going forward? Enhancing999 (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I had closed two discussions with a lot of feedback: (1 bridge by country), (views with 1 bridge) in which several users spoke out with arguments against a change/deletion. With the comment "no consensus to change".
  • I only closed the discussion about transport buildings in Zaberfeld after I had fixed the wrong categorization on infrastructure instead of buildings.
All 3 cases are so common. Your reverts and the start of this admin problem (after i corrected the categorization according to your arguments) is not fair.
Look at a lot of other discussions that ended with a lot of user feedback with "no consensus change", e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2020/02/Category:Groups_of_cats which was closed by User:Joshbaumgartner. Nothing was reverted there.
How can anyone ever end a clear discussion when you have to fear a revert or an admin problem and you seem to refuse a peaceful conflict resolution.
Your "Can we count on you not to close any discussions going forward?" sounds to me almost like a threat never to end a discussion again, otherwise a revert or an admin problem will be made of it immediately. Don't worry: I'll never end a discussion again, because you've completely taken away my joy and courage of problem solving. I will no longer pay attention to Category:Categories for discussion, as I do not want to get into such unfair conflicts (to fear reverts or an admin problems; --> see the 3 cases above with "no consensus to change" (most users for "keep") or correct categorization) with good intentions.
Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 14:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It is hard for me to understand how the discussion is going. It' obvious that two users have very different views about the same actions. It is also hard to see clear reasons for each action in the past. Noone is right or wrong in each case! I recommend that both parties come to an agreement and let critical points rest for a while until emotions have calmed down and common sense and reason can decide again. Make a break and each do different work! --HubiB (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious that one shouldn't delete other people's questions in discussions? [26] Enhancing999 (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I have not seen the question, just your revert of the closing of the discussion before without any comment (!) [27]. I reverted with the comment "the category are corrected... the category is empty" because i moved Category:Streets in Zaberfeld from "Transport building in Zaberfeld" (topic of the discussion) to "infrastructure in Zaberfeld". According to YOUR arguments. I guess you not have recognized that change. After this correct categorization i thought the category could be closed, because it is corrected and not different to the categorization of "Streets" in "settlement infrastructure", not "transport buildings" anymore. Sorry for reverting the question within. I had good intensions. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 15:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, now you can re-open the discussion and summarize it there.
Afterall, someone already tried to explain it on your talk page and somehow that didn't work.
Also, you mentioned that the same "correct" or "incorrect" change was done elsewhere, so it still needs to be fixed there too. Enhancing999 (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I corrected it in Baden-Württemberg, the districts of Baden-Württemberg and within the Landkreis Heilbronn for all municipalities, so Zaberfeld as a municipality too, but I think that's not what you were interested in, that I had corrected it, but just waiting for an opportunity to start an admin problem against me. I had good intensions and corrected the category Category:Streets in Zaberfeld to solve one Problem of Category:Categories for discussion. By the way: I re-opened the discussion. And: Don't worry: I'll never end a discussion again, because you've completely taken away my joy and courage of problem solving, otherwise a revert or an admin problem will be made of it immediately. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 15:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't understand the problem. In the last few weeks I have seen though that your one finds fault with the other's categories. The creation may be a matter of taste, factually wrong I have not seen any. Would it perhaps be possible to state the problem factually without referring to any diffs. Thanks. --XRay 💬 15:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
In the meantime, there seems to a unanimous consensus that Triple's creation was an error.
At least your comment seems to confirm that their way of expressing it is confusing. Enhancing999 (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I can´t see a problem within the changes of Triplec85. I think they have been correct. But I must admit, that it´s a little bit difficult to follow them. I think that Enhancing999 has a personally problem and I agree to Lukas Beck ("sometimes ridiculous"), sorry.--Schorle (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Are you referring to Triple's first closure or to Triple's second closure? Enhancing999 (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
So this discussion here should be closed too? IMO it should. --XRay 💬 17:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Cesar David MP

Cesar David MP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), fresh off a third (1 month) block, has resumed uploading images lacking evidence of permission, such as File:MinistroWillyHurta.jpg and File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I decided to forgive Cesar David this time, because I expect more good uploads from him. I warned Cesar David again and I thank Tartan for nominating copyvios for deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1792.svg and User:Pofka

User:Pofka has submitted File:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1792.svg for deletion for the third time (1, 2, 3). Maybe it's time to somehow limit the participant? -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  • I done it because you yourself remove (HIS EDIT) Commons templates of file renaming in order to avoid third-party interventions. I will not fight an edit warring with you. I leave it to the administrators and seeing your bad faith edits I have no other choice. -- Pofka (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I believe, that User:Pofka should be finally blocked for clear and persistent disruptive activity that prevents other users from normal contributing to the project. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
You mean I should be blocked so that I could not report your and your close friend Лобачев Владимир's clear attempts to mislead other users in Lithuanian affairs? And that the Lithuanian affairs should be left to a person like you, who refer to Lithuanians with adjectives such as rubbish (1, 2, 3, etc.)? -- Pofka (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
You should be blocked for: 1) spreading blatant lie (calumny) about other user (the latest example is above: "who refer to Lithuanians with adjectives such as rubbish"); 2) misleading other users (Elli, Richardkiwi and others) in order to undermine normal functioning of the project; 3) harassing other users (Лобачев Владимир) to prevent them from normal contributing to the project. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
If Pofka is interrupting Лобачев Владимир's normal form of contributing to the project, he should be thanked, not blocked. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
In case of deletion request for File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg (after its misleading renaming request [28], that I should have canceled by addressing another user) as well as in case of systematic spreading calumny that I called other people "rubbish" Pofka is interrupting normal form of contributing to the project by me as well. And such interrupting is clearly disrupting and have nothing in common with good faith. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

 Support At least a topic ban in the area of flags since Pofka has a history of making extremely hyperbolic and conspiracy laden comments towards Russian users in relation to flags and has targeted specific users to that end. To the point that it seriously comes off like Russophobia. Whatever the details of his disputes with Russian users is, Wikimedia has strict guidelines against discrimination. Pofka targeting the files of specific Russian users for deletion and claiming they are malicious Russia propagandist trolls without evidence really goes over the line. Just to cite a few examples of the clearly personally attacking things they have said in deletion requests "the files created with primary purpose to mislead other users", "what you are doing here is just a bad faith misleading of other users (trolling)", "Trolling detected. You are surely wasting other users time", "It is you who is using adjective rubbish towards other people based on their nationality", "one of the uploaders single-handedly blocks such attempts and seek to purposefully continue misleading other user." That's just from a single deletion request. If repeatedly and without evidence accusing someone of trolling and spreading Russian propaganda doesn't violate the civility guidelines I don't know what would. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

A few more examples of clearly uncivil behavior and targeting based purely on the users nationality from Commons:Deletion_requests/Imaginary_flags_created_and_uploaded_by_Лобачев_Владимир. The last two comments are particularly concerning.
  • "Лобачев Владимир clearly wants to defeat the purpose of this project and should be presented with strict sanctions for his disruptive activity"
  • "they have no educational value and are nothing else than your personal fantasy"
  • "your fake creations reminds LEGO toys instead of authentic reconstructions based on historical sources"
  • "such purposeful manipulations which have no educational value and only causes harm to users by confusing them. Not a single piece of these flags is authentic"
  • "all propaganda. I request to put an end to Лобачев Владимир's actions which clearly violates good-will",
  • "user Лобачев Владимир is already well known for aggressively trying to Russify various topics"
  • "All he does is creates fake flags with fake texts without any educational value and tries to pollute this project with them. Clearly malicious activity"
  • "I suggest permanent IP BAN"
  • "He is clearly working for the Internet Research Agency or a similar Russian structure and spreads Russian propaganda"
  • "The uploader likely belongs to the Russian Troll Factory and his paid tasks are to harm Russia's neighboring countries"

--Adamant1 (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Not impressed, you should read your own comments sometime. What other Russian users? An accusation of discrimination is not something to be taken lightly. If it proves to be baseless, you have a problem. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I didn't know this complaint was about me. Nor was I aware that the repeated accusations toward Лобачев Владимир would only count as personal attacks/discrimination if they have a history of treating other Russian users the same way. Obviously there's not going to be any evidence of Pofka making personal attacks toward and targeting Russian users that they haven't targeted or made personal attacks toward. That doesn't mean Pofka isn't motivated by Russiaphobia. They have literally brought up Лобачев Владимир being Russian multiple times and in an extremely disparaging, derogatory fashion. It's hysterical to claim that Pofka could care less about Russians when literally every other comment they make has to do with Russia and Russians. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
What it does mean, is that you, Adamant1, continue to display an assumption of bad faith which is far over the line. So yes, this is now about you. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
All I'm doing is pointing out the obvious based on the evidence I provided of comments Pofka has made. People are free to disagree with my conclusions. That's fine. It's not my report and admins will weigh the evidence however they see fit. If you have that much of a problem with anything I've said, be my guest and start a new ANI complaint about it or we can discuss it on my talk page if you really want to. I could really care less. I know you want to use whatever you can to distract from Pofka's behavior, but let's not needlessly turn this into a side argument. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
You're doing quite bit more. You are continuously attacking the character of other users, in pretty much every comment. That is a significantly bigger problem than anything you're accusing Pofka of. If saying so distracts you from your attacks on Pofka, all the better, but that is not why I said it. So stop suggesting ulterior motives on my part. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Hardly. Pofka is still out there saying Лобачев Владимир is a Russian troll and calling for him to be banned like two weeks later. Whereas I pretty much dodged out of this a while ago. But sure dude, I'm the one constantly attacking people even though I haven't even been involved in this for like a week. While Pofka said "it is not surprising that a Russian user is performing trolling in a Lithuanian topic. Topic ban in Lithuanian affairs might teach him a lesson to stop bad faith trolling" like yesterday. Whatever you say though. Clearly your side can do no wrong. At least I've said I'd probably support Лобачев Владимир being topic banned on Wikipedia. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 Comment  Support topic ban for Adamant1 from all user-related issues due to incessant display of bad faith toward, well, everyone, including an unfounded accusation of discrimination above. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I am unsure about how hoaxes are handled on Commons, but I recognize many trustworthy editors from Polish Wikipedia in that deletion discussion. It seems extremely likely to me that this images are, in fact, mislabelled to the point of being hoaxes or outright fabrications Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
It appears that they aren't handled on Commons, at least not to any meaningful degree. I think there was an RfC recently about if Commons should host fantasy or not that was essentially rejected because most people don't have an issue with them. I'm not a big fan of hoaxes myself, but there's no bright line between what is or isn't one. Most of it seems comes down to whatever group it's cool to have an issue with at the time. Like take Philatelic fakes and forgeries for example. Personally, I see no issue with images of fake stamps being hosted on Commons and think they have educational value. It seems like the wider community shares my opinion. No one is out there trying to get fake stamps deleted. Same goes for Category:fan art. Hell, there's a couple of thousand images in Category:Government propaganda that no one cares about, including the trustworthy Polish editors who have repeatedly gone off about the flags being propaganda. In the meantime those same users are nominating otherwise fine images for deletion just because they were hosted on a Russian website once. But it's bad faithed to say this has anything to do with Russians or Russia. So...."Shrug emoji" I guess? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
It is legal to design and print your own stamps. What is not OK is to suggest that they are the official stamps of a historic country, when that isn't actually the case. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Taking a file from an authoritative source and naming it completely different, just because a Commons user doesn't like that name, is a forgery. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Is that intended as a legal threat? Please stop with your personal attacks. A user not liking the name isn't the reason for their suggestion to rename that particular image. The reason is that your single, not so authoritative source is contradicted by other material. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: What is not OK is to suggest that they are the official stamps of a historic country. I don't have a link to it right now, but I was looking at a website the other day of a Polish museum that does restoration work on 16th century Polish flags. There's essentially no difference between their "restored" versions of the flags and the ones made by Лобачев Владимир. In fact the Polish museum embellished quite a lot with their modern designs, including adding small details that don't appear to be in the original flags and using different colors then the originals (which were mostly brown due to their age). So maybe your right about stamps, but that doesn't seem to be the case when it comes to creating modern versions of historical flags. Otherwise you'd have to argue that Polish museums are Russian troll farms spreading anti-Polish propaganda or whatever. Have fun with that. BTW, they do the same thing with Egyptian artifacts. You can look all over the place and see images of colorized hieroglyphics from reputable sources that don't necessarily match how they were originally colored. Literally no one cares. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Alotorus

@Alotorus: courtesy ping to Alotorus)
 This user has uploaded dozens of images in their time here, all of which either have been deleted as copyright violations or appear to be copyright violations. They have previously been blocked for this behavior, but haven't amended their behavior since. They continue to upload copyright violations, including File:Chenab Rail Bridge Under Construction.jpg which was previously deleted as a copyright violation. Yet, they persist. They currently have 18 images which have not been deleted, but are likely to all be copyright violations. I am requesting this editor be indefinitely blocked until such time as they demonstrate a willingness to comply with our copyright policies. I am also requesting all their current uploads be deleted. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

LiveIsle2022

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

User:RockingSummer

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Obvious copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Kelhuri

Hello Commons admins:

Kelhuri user has a history (as evidenced by their talk page) of uploading copyright violations. They were given a final warning on April 29 to stop uploading copyright violations, but they have continued to upload obvious copyright violations of photos that they do not own as their "own work". These include File:Adham Barzani.jpg and File:Jalal Talabani and Ali Bapir.jpg, among several other files that I have nominated for deletion.

Since the user has repeatedly uploaded photos that they do not own as their own work, even following the final warning on April 29, I propose that the use be blocked from Commons until they affirmatively agree to not upload any more copyright violations.

Yours truly,
Mhawk10 (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, most copyvios deleted. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kelhuri. Yann (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

User:あうえ

This new user has very recently joined Wikimedia Commons. I noticed first hand they started adding the group category to the individual categories of the group members, which doesn't belong there as it's for the group only and not the individual members. I pinged them on their talk page to tell them, but I'm not sure if they are a native speaker, as they continue to keep doing as they desire. This is their history: [29] Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Btspurplegalaxy You should inform @あうえ which I have done. It is unclear whether they have stopped. It's not clear to me why the individual group members wouldn't be in the group category either but I assume this has been discussed somewhere and a consensus formed. I see that Category:J-Hope in 2021 still has the group category though. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Celco85

User talk page requests from other editors:

Recent examples

-- Verbcatcher (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Butko

Admin Butko has speedily deleted File:Евреи, их происхождение и причины их влияния в Европе 1907.pdf, which is a scan of an old anti-semitic conspiracy script by Houston Stewart Chamberlain. The deletion was out of process and the "COM:CSD#G7" as reason is actually invalid, because the file was uploaded as long ago as in 2016 and surely not "recently". Until Wednesday, the file even had been used in Russian Wikipedia. IMO merely the fact that Butko had uploaded it himself at that point does not justify a deletion w/o any discussion. Given this pending discussion on Russian WP, it seems like Wikipedia has now received a warning from the Russian censorship authority not to host this book which was banned in Russia in 2018 due to extremist stuff, which seems to be the reason for the speedy deletion (as well as for the recent removal of the PDF from the Russian Wikipedia). Well, I'm probably amongst the last ones who would ever *like* this book, its author and his thoughts; however, as we hopefully know COM:NOTCENSORED, Chamberlain is a historically notable author, and I don't think it's in general the right way to go for Commons to obey the Russian government just because "they told us to delete". That said, I find the deletion problematic at least, as well as Butko's unwillingness to step back (which means, to undelete the book and to nominate for a regular deletion). Thanks. --A.Savin 14:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

This book has been declared extremist in my country. Its distribution entails administrative responsibility. I don't want to be prosecuted because of this file. I made an offer to the A.Savin to upload this book himself, if he want, but he probably pursues some other interests. --Butko (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
"the A.Savin", oh well. But seriously: Why should I upload that file? What does it have to do with our Speedy deletion guidelines? And isn't your country actually Ukraine? Regards --A.Savin 16:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I have restored the file but revision-deleted the log, I hope this solves the problem. What I did not figure out how to do (and will need some help) is how to remove the uploader's name which is displayed on the file page. Ymblanter (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Ymblanter you don't solve the problem. In this file my name is displayed. --Butko (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Instead of restoring the file, let some alt account created for this purpose upload the image as a new file. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
This is exactly what I mentioned above. I am sure it can be revdelled and someone here knows how. Ymblanter (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 Info In the current version of the file, it seems like Butko has over-written the book with a version containing just its cover, and revdel'ed the original version again. Out of process, of course. What else is this if not a sysop abuse (de facto wheelwarring) by Butko? Regards --A.Savin 17:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
A.Savin if you want to to follow process please start from hundreds or thourhands your own deletions. For example, thease deletions are in process?
--Butko (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • If you want to contest a deletion by me, feel free to start a separate thread. Not sure though, if someone would be willing to solve a case from 2015. I don't even remember what was the relevant discussion. But as always, a nice whataboutism. Regards --A.Savin 17:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    You don't remember relevant discussion because you deleted these files without any discussion --Butko (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    My talkpage was open in 2015 too, as well as COM:UDR, COM:ANU, etc.pp... If the deletion was a problem, where were you then?
    The questions below you're not going to answer? No arguments left apart from cheap whataboutism? --A.Savin 18:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Butko, do you like to respond?
a) If you care so much about your safety, why are you deleting this file permanently, and not re-uploading using an anonymous sockpuppet?
b) C'mon man, you are from Donetsk, right? Since when does Donetsk belong to Russia and Roskomnadzor has the power over it? Or did I miss something (silly me!) and your so-called "People's Republic" already has been anschlussed by Putin? ;) --A.Savin 17:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@Butko and @A.Savin Houston Stewart Chamberlain might have been philosopher proponent of the pseudo-scientific social and racial darwinist, anti-semitic writer, precusor of the Völkisch movements and the nazi and all around racist and bigot person, but yet his work is an important part of that period of history.
Per that, and as putinist and fascist Roskomnadzor has no jurisdiction in Ukraine (not even occupied territories), EU, or USA, local of Wikimedia webservers, I reuploaded the complete file from a Google Books reuploaded to the Internet Archive, as this was deleted out of process by Butko. Tm (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, I now revision-deleted the previous version so that it is not clear now what Butko originally uploaded. I hope this solves the problem. Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
This solves the "little" problem that the book was deleted; this does NOT solve the "much bigger" problem that we have an admin on Commons who is misusing his admin flag on behalf of Roskomnadzor. Regards --A.Savin 20:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
If Butko knows that this was a mistake and says not to do so again and is careful with other deletion requests in this topic this would be fine for me. But if something like this happens again a de-adminship should definitely be opened. --GPSLeo (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

User:OliverDF

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
All files by this user are suspicious. Help needed to check them all. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

User:1Geek4U

1Geek4U (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploads likely copyrighted images and logos. I proposed them from deletion but he should warned by administrator. Pierre cb (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: I notified them of this section, as you should have done. I also warned them, as you could have done.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not know how. Anyway, I notified the user of the deletion process, notifying further is the role of an administrator as I understand it. Pierre cb (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@Pierre cb You don't see "Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this." above? You could also turn on the "User Messages" Gadget at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
No idea how to use that as my preferences are in French. Pierre cb (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@Pierre cb: See Help:Gadget-UserMessages, not yet translated into French.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the usage but I can try in the future. Pierre cb (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@Pierre cb: Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Churchserver

FyzixFighter (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for socking. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Churchserver. Yann (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

User:TeamSupportNNew

✓ Done User warned. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Forotomane officiel

Newly-arrived User:Forotomane officiel is spamming their YouTube URL as image captions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

User:David C. S.

@Jeff G.: I forgot about doing it, many kind thanks for it! --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@NoonIcarus: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Durante meses, el editor @NoonIcarus ha insistido en una versión preferida del mapa en File:Venezuela president recognition map.svg en una guerra de edición de ritmo lento. La discusión no sirve de nada ante un usuario que dilata interminablemente la misma, bloqueando toda posibilidad de cambio argumentando la falta de consenso. [33] -- David C. S. 03:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
For months, editor @NoonIcarus has insisted on a preferred version of the map in File:Venezuela president recognition map.svg in a slow-paced editing war. The discussion is useless before a user who endlessly dilates it, blocking any possibility of change arguing the lack of consensus. [34]
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

David's claims are demonstrably false and appear to be, at least partly, just a copy and past of the original complaint. As it was mentioned when the thread was started, many of his proposals have been accepted, including Argentina, Honduras, Mexico, Panama and Peru, as the map understandably needs to be updated.

The issue at hand is that he has insisted on the same changes since last year, 18 October 2021, even after opposition to it has been shown, including by editors @Dradee: and @Lorgadh: and being warned against edit warring, refusing to engage in discussion. For instance, he has insisted in changing Algeria to the same color at least 8 times ([35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]), as well as Spain's at least 5 times, including the file's last version ([43][44][45][46][47]), offering the same edit summaries or responding to concerns raised (except for mocking at times). This is a cross-wiki issue since the editorial dispute since the situation has been discussed at length in the Spanish Wikipedia (eg: es:Discusión:Crisis presidencial de Venezuela#Argelia).

I have added a Factual accuracy tag to prevent further, but admin intervention is needed to prevent further disruption. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Jjulianhernandezh

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons Amdinistrator User:A.Savin

Deutsch: Der Administrator schrieb auf meiner Diskussionseite folgendes: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SamsonBVB#Wikimedia_Commons_hat_einen_bestimmten_Rahmen Das Problem ist aber, dass ich ein Recht auf nichtdiskriminierende Art und Weise auf Meinungsfreiheit und Wort und Bild habe. Das streitet er ab. Er drückt sich mangelhaft vom Inhalt aus. Das also sehr vage (ungenau) und besonders verwirrt agitiert er gegen mich. Ich habe nur die Umstände und Abläufe so wie ich es will beschrieben und das real. Ohne zu diskriminieren. Er will aber hier meinen Ausweis und Zeugenberichte. Auch will der hier alle Fotos von mir löschen, weil er eine Konspiration gegen sich sieht, so eben vage und wirr diktierend. Er verstößt gegen das globale Menschenrecht auf Meinungsfreiheit. Der Löscheinsatz von Helikoptern sei nicht echt für ihn. Auch sieht er kein INteresse am Waldbrand in der Sächsischen Schweiz, der der größte seitdem Bestehen des Nationalparks seit 180 Jahren ist. Er stört sich daran, dass ich mehrsprachig schreibe und will mir das auch verbiten. "Das ist soviel Text!", meint er, obwohl es nur mehrsprachig dasselbe ist und besonders nur für ihn viel ist, für mich nicht.


English: The administrator wrote the following on my talk page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SamsonBVB#Wikimedia_Commons_has_einen_certain_framework The problem, however, is that I have a right to freedom of expression and freedom of expression in words and pictures in a non-discriminatory manner. He denies that. He expresses himself deficiently in the content. So that's very vague (imprecise) and particularly confused he's agitating against me. I have only described the circumstances and processes the way I want them to be real. Without discriminating. But he wants my ID and witness reports here. Also, this one wants to delete all my photos because he sees a conspiracy against him, just dictating so vaguely and confusedly. It violates the global human right to freedom of expression. Helicopter firefighting operations are not genuine for him. He also sees no interest in the forest fire in Saxon Switzerland, which is the largest since the national park has existed for 180 years. He is bothered by the fact that I write in several languages ​​and also wants to forbid me to do so. "That's so much text!" he says, although it's just the same in several languages ​​and it's a lot for him, not for me.

SamsonBVB (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I am in agreement with A.Savin here. Your files are great and we are thankful that you upload them, but the descriptions are far too long and consist primarily of personal commentary. File descriptions should be a brief description of what the file depicts, and relevant information such as date and location. For the file that A.Savin linked, File:Extinción de incendios con aviones Schmilka 7 2022 o.JPG, a more relevant and useful description would be something like A firefighting helicopter along the Elbe at Schmilka in July 2022.
You freedom of expression is not being restricted; you are merely being told that this is not the right website for what you want to express. (Think of it like a library: if you make a sculpture and try to give it to the library, the librarians will not want it - not because they do not want you to make art, but because it is not an art gallery.) Commons has a specific scope: hosting free media files with educational and historical value. That means that file descriptions need to be useful to all users who view a file. Commons is not a social media network or personal filesharing site where personal commentary on files is relevant and part of the experience. If it is important to you to have personal commentary with your images, you may wish to also upload them somewhere like Flickr or Instagram where such commentary is welcome. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
(Non admin comment) I'm in agreement with Pi and A.Savin - Images only need short and to-the-point decriptions .... the waffle at File:Extinción de incendios con aviones Schmilka 7 2022 o.JPG is wholly irrelevant and innapropriate. I would suggest you withdraw this and shorten your image descriptions accordingly. ()struck in light of the idiotic insult by nom below) –Davey2010Talk 00:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)(modified: 00:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC))
 Comment The user SamsonBVB is not only refusing to adress the legitimate question on their talkpage and is reporting me here straightaway instead -- they are also primitively insulting me by taking my user page portrait and posting a link to a dog photo on its talk page. That said, I think the user is a pretty clear case of en:WP:NOTHERE. I'm really not willing to discuss with them at that level. The extremely non-descriptive descriptions of their uploads should of course be removed and replaced, at least by some "missing-description" placeholder or whatever may fit. Regards --A.Savin 00:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The picture of a dog is never an "insult" and "primitive". The dog cannot be an insult because he is happy and running and has an authentic mood and does not attack. The next agitation against me is by him that he is calling me "their or them". He is only agitating and does not want me to have an identity from my heritage from the forest fire near my home. I never will learn Russian! They have no softpower. I will report him to the Central Intelligence Agency. I have forest fires around me und he is agitating. That is enough.

The next: I have made masses on contributions never for him and his mood. In the describtions everybody has the opportunity to write in the section short description. In every picture. He cannot discuss. Wants to delete my hard work, without reason. He accuses me to get information from me. For no reason. He accuses me without facts happening.

He never explained in law number 1 or 2 there is anything written. He never did. He speaks very confused and imprecise. You can never understand him like that. Then he threatens me to delete all Western helicopter pictures, how enthusiastically they use them to extinguish the forest fire. He arrives and agitates me as bad. He's clearly hostile. His character is not suitable as an administrator. He comes with endless accusations for no reason. You can't answer that because you don't have time.

He made the following mistake: No exact citations for his claims and no links that say that you can see for everyone that you should only write "5 sentences". He could quickly change that himself with a bot, but we would like to discuss it in a time-consuming manner and label me as "primitive" here on the notice board. As he is calling me here directly primitive in is agitation, that his administrator license will be revoked.SamsonBVB (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not know who is right and who is wrong here but I blocked the user indefinitely for explicit threats above to report A.Savin to CIA. If they retract the threats, we might consider unblocking them. Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I was going to do the same. I removed the out-of-scope text on File:Extinción de incendios con aviones Schmilka 7 2022 o.JPG. Yann (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
ResolvedSamsonBVB is blocked indef. for threats and harassment. Yann (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

SamsonBVB has spammed links to archival copies of their out-of-scope essays to file talk pages. Should those pages be deleted if new, or rev-deled if there is other content? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I've deleted these talk pages per COM:GCSD#G1. They were the only edits and these links are not helpful as the original descriptions can always be obtained from the history of the file description pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Looks like talk page access might need to be revoked, as they're still making legal treats there ("
Die Behauptungen hier gegen mich werde ich von der Polizei prüfen lassen.
" may be translated as "I will have the allegations here against me checked by the police."). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done by Elcobbola. Yann (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 Support.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

User:John emil hernandez

The user rendered multiple images illegible after removing borders from white vector images. They are uninterested in explaining their actions and have repeatedly reintroduced their changes despite reverts from several other users. H78c67c (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months (3rd block). Clear abuse of overwriting. Yann (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Anonimo247a

Anonimo247a (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has been repeatedly uploading files with copyvio, despite the warning on his talk page. --Ovruni (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Nykyforiv and licence laundering

I kindly ask admins to look into this situation. Licence laundering is really not nice issue, also considering previous copyvio by user: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ігор Лаченков.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tetiana_Khodakivska.jpg Renvoy (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Final warning sent. Copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Renvoy and Yann: Just wondering, do you know of a way to get the upload date of a Flickr photo? It now looks like the "Taken on" date is pretty useless. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Flickr includes an "Uploaded on" date on each photo's webpage when it can't determine a "Taken on" date. However, neither Flinfo nor the Upload Wizard seems capable of capturing it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi folks! I'm sorry for this situation, all the images were uploaded in agreement with thier authors. I just have to figure out how to use OTRS system to upload them properly. Thank you for the notification about it :) --Nykyforiv (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
@Nykyforiv: Please see VRT instead. We have tried hard to make it easy to understand, within the bounds of technology and international copyright laws and treaties.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Sumedh Yadavalli

Sumedh Yadavalli (hereafter "the master") is a user that uploaded a photo at File:Sumedh.jpg in 2017. Another user, Hellohiii (hereafter "the sock), requested that the file be undeleted, stating that it was my work so i have giving licence policy that anyone can use this pic. The file, however, was previously deleted as out-of-scope.

At the request for undeletion, Yann instructed the user to not create multiple accounts and declined the restoration of the image. However, the sock would later disrupt Commons by uploading a copyrighted photograph sourced from en:The Times of India to File:Sumedh.jpg.

Based upon the behavior of the accounts, it appears clear that the sock is indeed a sockpuppet of the master and that the sockpuppet has disrupted Commons. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Capplannetta

For your information: I just blocked Capplannetta (talk · contribs) indefinitely as vandalism-only account, mostly for this edit. Taivo (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Jessica Hope Jackson

Jessica Hope Jackson (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is uploading selfies and Instagram photos of unknown origin. I warned her already and proposed many of her photos for deletion, could an Administrator keep an eye on her future behavior? Pierre cb (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, most files deleted. Yann (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Adamant1

Please see this discussion on my user talk page and this CfD nomination, the discussion underneath which is in imminent danger of going off the rails. For the sake of my own sanity, I need to step away from these goings-on for a while and I would appreciate another admin weighing in, or at least keeping an eye on the situation. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Why exactly does you having to step away from these goings-on for a while warrant reporting me to ANI? I've been pretty civil in both the CfD discussion and talk page discussion. Really this ANI just seems like another attempt at getting your way through less then good faithed, collaborative means. Just like when you falsely accused me of edit warning so you could justify protecting files that we were in the middle of discussing to get your way in the disagreement. Which really I should have just reported you for since it was clearly an abuse of the administrator tools. As a side to that, going around claiming random CfDs are fake isn't really helpful. So I'd appreciate it if you provided some evidence that the CfD nomination was spurious like you've claimed or I request that you stop casting asperations about it. Thanks.--Adamant1 (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

 Support User consistently applies a definition of civility that is at odds with what everybody else understands it to mean, and displays a general attitude of bad faith day after day. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Guido den Broeder, but what exactly do you "support" doing? I intentionally refrained from suggesting any courses of action, such as user blocks, because I felt it would be inappropriate for me as an active participant in the dispute against Adamant1 to do so. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Administrative action. That could a ban from deletion discussions, as I've proposed before, or an indefinite block. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what action may have been taken against Adamant1 in the past, but if Commons' policy contains any analogue to w:WP:IBAN I think, at the least, that would be a good idea. Even if some admin closes the CfD discussion, I don't trust that he's not going to continue following me around harassing me. He's already gone from my user talk page to CfD to this page. I'm not interested in meting out justice or putting anyone in their place, I just want to work on this site in peace. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't trust that he's not going to continue following me around harassing me. I've started two discussions on your talk page in a month and both were in relation to you reverting my edits. I wasn't the instigator of either of those interactions either. You were by reverting me. It's extremely hyperbolic to call that harassment. Especially the second interaction since I've made it clear that I didn't check the edit history before I moved the files since I was already working in that area and therefore had zero idea that you had edited them before me. Same goes for the CfD. I was already doing work on things related to that area of New York before we got into the disagreement and my creation of the CfD had nothing in particular to do with you. Which is why I didn't mention you or our disagreement in the CfD message. It was just an unfortunate overlap. It happens sometimes.
In the meantime treating me like I'm somehow harassing you by commenting on this ANI complaint is just ridiculous. I have every right to comment here and ask you for evidence of the claims your making about me. Suggesting I be topic banned or blocked for doing so is absurd. You've done nothing but demean me and dismiss my opinions since this whole thing started. If you can show actual instances of me following you and harassing you or causing you actual harm then either do it or I request you drop it. Otherwise, I suggest a boomerang and I'm more then willing to provide evidence for why one is justified due to your seriously unscrupulous behavior toward me. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
You do realize that your contribution history is available for anyone to see, right? I've gone back two months so far, and up through our encounter it's all random stuff about postcards with no particular geographical focus, and none at all to do with the Finger Lakes region of New York. Nor is it believable that "[your] creation of the CfD had nothing in particular to do with [me]" when the category had only existed for four hours before you nominated it, and it was created as a direct result of a discussion that you were involved in, and that ended with a resolution that you were dissatisfied with. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
when the category had only existed for four hours before you nominated it. Is there normally a certain amount of time that should pass after a category is created before someone can start a CfD about it? Because I don't see anything on Commons:Categories for discussion or anywhere else saying that's the case.
it was created as a direct result of a discussion that you were involved in. And? There's no rule that people can't get feedback from the wider community about something they were previously involved in. That's literally the point in CfDs. No one is going to start a CfD about something they have no prior dealings with. In the meantime just because we had a prior discussion about Dix doesn't mean the CfD was started specifically "because of you." Like I said, I was already editing things related to the area. It's not on me that your making this personal. As far as if the conversation "ended with a resolution that was dissatisfied with", the conversation hadn't ended. We both still commenting in it after I started the CfD. So I'm not really sure what your talking about or how I could of been dissatisfied with a resolution that didn't happen. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
  • There's a lot that's strange here. It is weird that Dix, NY isn't on Google Maps; it is weird that a populated place in a scenic area of New York wouldn't pop up in the first couple pages of google image hits, other than a few maps that contradict where it actually is. Still, it's on the official county website, and that should be that. Show evidence that the county website is outdated or that it's not really the county website or the conversation is just done at that point. The whole overlapping of villages, towns, zip codes, post offices, etc. is very, very normal for small towns/villages in the US, and not an indication of anything other than a misunderstanding of the sometimes complicated relationships between municipalities, levels of government, and public services. Adamant does seem to go to great lengths in arguing their own correctness at XfD, but more evidence would be needed to justify a deletion-related sanction. At some point, Andre, you just have to trust that the closing admin is going to make the right call and move on for your own sanity, rather than going beat-for-beat. For an IBAN, I'd expect to see harassment/hounding/attacks that go beyond this one topic area. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
The whole overlapping of villages, towns, zip codes, post offices, etc. is very, very normal for small towns/villages in the US I don't necessarily disagree with that. The reason it's a thing being discussed in this particular case though is that Andre claims it would be lying/dishonest of Commons to put Category:Watkins Glen State Park‎ in Category:Watkins Glen, New York since it's technically mostly in Dix even though the multiple addresses for it are for Watkins Glen and that's where most people think it's located.
IMO Andre's is just being super pedantic about it since the difference between something being in Dix versus Watkins Glen is superficial at best (if not completely non-exiting) since for all intents and purposes Dix doesn't exist as it's own geographical entity separate from Watkins Glen IRL. Which is why the Facebook page for Dix is titled "Town of Dix - Watkins Glen." They are essentially the same area, town, Etc. Etc. No one there considers them as separate entities. Dix doesn't even have it's own fire department, police force, court house, or really anything else. Everything is either done by Watkins Glen or shared with them. So there's zero reason Category:Watkins Glen State Park‎ shouldn't be in Category:Watkins Glen, New York even if some of it overlaps with the boundary of Dix. Except Andre drew an arbitrary line in the sand for no reason and protect the files. That's really the route of this whole issue though. I think it's perfectly fine to put Category:Watkins Glen State Park‎ in Category:Watkins Glen, New York and Andre thinks it should just be done his way, and that I should piss off and move on or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
You are advancing arguments that have already been debunked. Dix literally does exist as a separate identity from Watkins Glen. In the CfD discussion, I previously linked to maps of both the Town of Dix and the Village of Watkins Glen from their respective official government websites. Dix literally does have its own courthouse. In the same CfD discussion, I also previously linked to a news article from a reliable source that mentioned it. As I said before, good-faith debate means you don't get to just ignore your opponent's points, pretend they were never brought up, or baselessly claim they're fake or from unreliable sources whenever they don't fit your narrative. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Dix literally does exist as a separate identity from Watkins Glen. As someone with experience in urban planning I assume you'd at least acknowledge that there's often huge differences between a parcel map and the actual on the ground reality of a particular geographical area. Let alone a parcel map and what's a practical way to do things when it comes to organizing files on Commons. Realistically people shouldn't have to check https://schuylercounty.us every time and plot the GPS coordinates every time they take a picture of the state park and want to put it in a category. Not like there is even a reliable way to do that anyway either. Do I ultimately care if an image someone took is "officially" in Watkins Glen or 5 feet to the west in an area of the park is technically in Dix but still has a Watkins Glen addresses? Not really. There's other hills to die on. If it's something you want to repeatedly get in arguments about though, cool. It's still something that we should be able to find a reasonable compromise on in the meantime though. My preferred way of doing things just leads to less potential friction later and follows existing standards of how things that cross multiple boundaries are categorized. Yours doesn't. That's it.
Outside of that everyone agrees that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia not fitting my narrative or whatever. I don't even use it for citing things I agree with. And your claim that Watkins Glen was the closet post office to the kennel was just factually incorrect. I'm not going to agree with you about something that's obviously factually wrong just so you won't throw a hissy fit about how I'm unwilling to listen or report me to ANU. Why not just admit you were wrong about it? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
The reason it's a thing being discussed in this particular case - It's also being discussed because you made it seem like a hoax, which it does not seem to be. If you agree now that it was a mistake, it would be constructive to withdraw that CfD. They are essentially the same area - They're not, according to the maps Andre produced, and it's unclear why you're still saying they are.
As for categorization of the park, my impression is if a place spans multiple municipalities, counties, towns, villages, whatever, we typically include add it to all of those respective categories, regardless of how much of it is in those places. If greater specificity would be desired, you can create subcategories of the park category for the portions of the park in those places (for images we can place in them). The images in the main park category, however, could be in any of those places. This doesn't seem like something that requires ANU, though. What you need is perhaps just a third (or fourth) opinion to settle it. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Let's please regard the state park category placement issue as a separate one from the Dix issue. The outcome of the former has no bearing on the latter, as there are several images currently in Category:Dix, New York that do not depict the state park. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
you made it seem like a hoax I never used the word hoax except in response to Andre Carrotflower saying that's what I was claiming. Nor did I say anything was being made up. At least not that I'm aware of. Except in relation to the idea that it's a completely separate entity from Watkins Glen. Since it clearly isn't. That doesn't mean it's a hoax though. So I'm not really sure what your talking about.
My impression is if a place spans multiple municipalities, counties, towns, villages, whatever, we typically include add it to all of those respective categories, regardless of how much of it is in those places. That was my impression to and I suggested doing as much Andre, but he refused to do it and reverted me when I tried to. I don't really think more specificity is needed outside of that though. Andre had suggested making something like Category:Watkins Glen State Park (Village of Watkins Glen portion but IMO that has it's own problems and reasons it wouldn't work. If you think adding it to all of the respective categories is a good option cool. I agree, but Andre doesn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
What you need is perhaps just a third (or fourth) opinion to settle it. I'm not really up on what other venues of discussion exist besides CfDs. So where else can I take it to then that? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
The Category:Watkins Glen State Park (Village of Watkins Glen portion) was one of three possible solutions proposed by User:Enyavar that I said would be agreeable to me (see the thread on my user talk page and specifically my comment timestamped 19:48, 24 August 2022). At that point I assumed we had a workable way forward and was only waiting to hear back from Enyavar to confirm that my viewpoint was okay with him. At that point, Adamant1 hadn't chimed into the discussion for some time and I assumed his concerns were resolved, or at least that he no longer considered the matter important enough to bother with. That's why I was so flabbergasted when Category:Dix, New York came up in CfD. Because not only did I assume the matter was closed, but the Dix issue in particular was one toward which Adamant1 had never registered even a peep of opposition. If I came across as irritable during the discussion at any point, it's because that looks suspiciously like a tit-for-tat. I tried hard to assume good faith that it wasn't, but his subsequent behavior didn't exactly help his case. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Category:Watkins Glen State Park (Village of Watkins Glen portion) was one of three possible solutions proposed by User:Enyavar...At that point, Adamant1 hadn't chimed into the discussion for some time. Maybe you and Enyavar discussed it somewhere else that I'm not aware of, but both times the option was floated on your talk page your the one who brought it up. Enyavar never said anything about it and there's a message from me directly below yours both times you mentioned it. So I have zero clue what your talking about. Really, it's just laughable to claim I wasn't involved in the discussion after Enyavar joined it. I commented like 7 times after he wrote his initial message.
the Dix issue in particular was one toward which Adamant1 had never registered even a peep of opposition. Just doing a quick glance I wrote three messages related to Dix where I mentioned it a total of like 23 times. I even said multiple times I had an issue with calling it a day at only putting Category:Watkins Glen State Park‎ in the category for Dix because the park is also/mainly/only in Watkins Glen. So in no way did I "never register even a peep of opposition about it." That was literally my main issue with the whole thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how in the world you think you can get away with brazenly lying about what you said, when everything you said is there in black and white on my talk page for anyone to read. Literally, literally, the first time you mentioned Dix was to say, and I quote, "I agree with [creating the Category:Town of Dix as a subcategory of Category:Schuyler County, New York]" (comment timestamped 16:55, 24 August 2022). After that, other than various incidental mentions in the context of the state park placement issue, you never mentioned Dix again until the CfD nomination. You are gaslighting all of us in this discussion, it is disruptive to the wiki, and quite frankly, if no other admin is willing to step up to the plate and deal with that disruption in a decisive manner, then I may just have to initiate user block proceedings myself on that basis. Same as what happened to you a bunch of times at Wikipedia. It's noteworthy that there's nothing written at Commons:Blocking policy that prevents an admin from initiating that process just because he himself may have been directly involved in some dispute with the blockee, and although thus far I have voluntarily held off on doing so because it would seem indecorous, it bears emphasizing that your misconduct (and, to be clear, that's what any user block would hinge on: not the mere fact that you CfD'd a category that I created, which would be fine if you had done so civilly, but your behavior over the course of that discussion, this one here, and others) has been ongoing for a full day and a half. And if I do say so myself, I have shown remarkable patience and self-restraint over that time in enduring the nonsense without resorting to the use of admin tools, and while avoiding lashing out emotionally with personal attacks and the like as best as I have been able. But I'm a human being, and patience and self-restraint are not something of which my supply is endless. At some point enough becomes enough, and the need for the disruption to end begins to outweigh my desire to wait for others to act and thereby avoid appearing petty. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how in the world you think you can get away with brazenly lying about what you said...You are gaslighting all of us in this discussion Repeat after me "Watskin Glen isn't the closest post office to the kennel", "I'm the only person who brought up Category:Watkins Glen State Park (Village of Watkins Glen portion) on my talk page", "I made up that Adamant1 disengaged from the discussion after Enyavar joined it", "There was nothing disruptive about Adamant1 starting the CfD even though I repeatedly claimed there was", "I'm the only one who ever said anything about hoaxes. Adamant1 never said there was a hoax or conspiracy even though I repeatedly claimed that he did."
then I may just have to initiate user block proceedings myself All I have to say about that is that you should really listen to Rhododendrites advice and move on from this for the sake of your own sanity, because from my perspective it's not looking very good for you right now. Seriously, take a step back from the computer for a while and go touch grass or something. Your really coming off to me as mentally unbalanced right now. It's not that bad man. I can just take the state park category thing to another venue like Rhododendrites suggested and we can all live happily ever after or whatever. No harm no foul. This one sided, tit-for-tat brinkmanship nonsense is just stupid. Honestly Andre, you've been playing the same single player game of battleship since this started. It's really not a good look for you. Give it a rest and move on for your own sake. I'm sure we both have better ways to spend our time. I know I do. Go make some chicken nuggies or something and enjoy the rest of your night. As someone who's had issues on other Wikipedia platforms for a lot of the same behavior your displaying right now I can guarantee you it isn't worth it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support some sort of sanction on Adamant1. This is approaching trolling and clear gaslighting. Either you dispute the need for the category because the place allegedly doesn't exist or you admit you believe the place exists because the items in it are incorrect and wikilawyering your prior language doesn't help. In the end, this is just someone who seems to enjoy annoying the hell out of people over random minutia because they have to be right above all and that's overall not a net positive. Some sort of disengagement is needed. Andre, you also need to disengage and take a break. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I've been pretty clear that I dispute the need for the category because IMO it's essentially a 1/1 copy of Category:Watkins Glen, New York or at least that's the conclusion I came to after doing a couple of days research on both locations. Of course other people are free to have their opinions. I wouldn't call my opinion gaslighting or trolling though. I've said the place exits and that I don't really care in the end what happens to the category. It was just something I wanted to get more opinions about. Unfortunately that seemed to have got lost some in the back and forth with Andre Carrotflower though. For which I apologize to whomever was irrevocably harmed by this whole thing. My bad. I genuinely didn't know that doing the CfD would be such an issue. I just thought it would be a good way to attract other people who could help me research Dix Andre Carrotflower since I was interested in the area. I could have clearer about it though. Again, my bad. Really. Lack of clarity=gaslighting/trolling. Got it. If I ever do another CfD I'll be sure to treat it like a PhD dissertation next time so as not to gaslight/troll anyone. Lessoned learned. I think some sort of disengagement from the whole thing is a good idea. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate Adamant's newfound conciliatory tone expressed above, and I'm sure I too could have done more to avoid fanning the flames, for which I apologize and pledge to take more care next time. I'm ready to consider the matter resolved if that's okay with everyone else. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Spurzem

I initiated a discussion on the behaviour of Spurzem three weeks ago [[48]].
His behaviour has not improved: see Commons:Valued image candidates/Ahrtal one year after.jpg. He makes many valuable contributions, but his behaviour is poisoning the VI project. I wonder if something can be done? Alerting those currently involved @Spurzem, Palauenc05, GRDN711, Archaeodontosaurus, Skimel, A1Cafel, Rhododendrites, and Ikan Kekek: Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

My comment is either we discipline Spurzem because his behavior is unacceptable or we tolerate his bad behavior because he contributes great valued images, but those who oppose enforcing reasonable standards of behavior in his case should admit why they are tolerating his bad behavior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Spurzem hasn't commented anything over the last weeks. His comment about A1Cafel's edit was not insulting at all, he just pointed out the lack of understanding of a) the German language and b) the problem that is dealt with in this particular nomination. Calling this "bad behavior" and asking for consequences is certainly over the top. --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  • @Charlesjsharp: It seems, you didn't get the meaning of it. The comparison to the monkeys refers to the image, in which the monkeys stand for a lack of understanding. But, to be honest, I'm really tired about this discussion. I prefer dealing with my own edits, rather than trying to discipline other users. Regards --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I'll repeat what I said there, but don't know what sort of action (if any) is correct: Part of the issue is VIC scopes in general, and part of it is Spurzem. It does seem like Spurzem... does not take criticism or disagreement well. But most of the times I've seen Spurzem lashing out at someone, it's been related to VIC scope, which is a frequent topic of confusion for me (and some others). Sometimes Spurzem nominates images with intricately descriptive scopes like "detail X of subject Y doing Z in year #", when we should only really have a scope for maybe two of those variables together (otherwise basically any image can be a VI if you just pile on enough variables). Spurzem is not the only one to use such narrow scopes, but is the only one who routinely lashes out at people for disagreeing with the scope. It's clear that Spurzem sees disagreement with the scope of a nomination with "devaluating photos as useless", as though denying another VI promotion for a particular scope is an insult to the photo and the photographer, even if another scope would be fine. Multiple users have expressed that it creates a chilling effect, with fewer people willing to review Spurzem's nominations. That's a problem, but what to do? — Rhododendrites talk |  17:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Just pausing to review one of Spurzem’s latest tirades from just two days ago. It is relatively mild compared to others I have received in the past.
“Hello GRDN711, your criticism and your rejection of the photo seems absolutely unqualified to me. You probably don't understand what it's about, but you declare the picture worthless, and I don't think that this is good. Best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)”
If the admins of this noticeboard look back at Spurzem comments in the past (for years?), they will find the same pattern. Anyone who disagrees with Spurzem, will often receive a tirade of abuse and some claim of personal victimization where the commentator is at fault.
Yes, the arguments usually involve VI scopes as scopes are the most contentious part of any VI nomination. Usually with a little collegial discussion, these issues are resolved with almost everyone except Spurzem, who prefers a verbal fight and power play to resolving the issue.
Spurzem is very intelligent; communicates well in both German and English; and can navigate on both the internet and Commons. And yet, he consistently posts disruptive social comments against those who disagree with him. The overall effect is to negatively impact the VI forum.
The VI forum needs a break from his participation for a couple of months. Hopefully, this time will promote a change in his behavior. --GRDN711 (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Spurzem is in contact with the VRTS team and has promised to keep away from VI. Let's see if this works. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

ClearerBOT

I've indef'd ClearerBOT (talk · contribs), who is obviously a SP of an LTA, for constantly shouting and threatening other users, in addition to vandalizing other user's posts on COM:AN, as evidenced by his edit-history of today (starting at 9:17). --Túrelio (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Thanks. I assume you meant 07:17 UTC.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Sure.--Túrelio (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Lithuanian pushing by user Pofka

CLOSED.:

The users were warned to stop trolling and editwaring, and advised to stay away from each others. Nothing more to do here. Yann (talk) 18:14, 27 August 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.

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

User Pofka adds a description to the emblems of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania of 1435 that these are the emblems of the Republic of Lithuania (01, 02, 03), which was created in 1918. Please cancel and warn the user about the inadmissibility of false descriptions.

P.S. See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Fake renaming, return of the original name. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh great. This nonsense again. Can someone please actually deal with it this time and just block both of them as disruptive or something? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Pofka correctly followed due process by reporting Лобачев Владимир for trying to rewrite history. This is one of many attempts by Лобачев Владимир to take revenge. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you really think that the Coat of Arms of the Duchy of Lithuania and Russia (Ruthenia) (in the original "[hertoghe von lettouwen] onde von rusen") refers to the Republic of Lithuania? -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I see no evidence for your claim that Pofka describes them as emblems of that republic. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
The third-party (TommyG) rejected user Лобачев Владимир's requests to Russify the Coat of arms of Lithuania as such actions "does not comply with renaming guidelines" (see: 1, 2, 3). On the contrary, my well-motivated requests to remove his clear trolling were previously granted (see: 1, 2, 3). Moreover, he continues to disrespect other countries (Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine) histories, statehoods, and symbols even here by describing Lithuanian and Ruthenian (Belarusian and Ukrainian) affairs as "Russian". Just pay attention for how many users and nations he is causing disruption. What kind of value we receive in such trolling? Please block Лобачев Владимир as he simply do not want to contribute quality content, but is using Commons and Wikipedia as a platform to spread his disgust towards other countries, nations and seek to harm their statehood histories. -- Pofka (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

 Support Sanctions for both parties since they are obliviously just massive time sucks all around. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you to spend time on this. In fact, I'd rather you didn't. Your unfounded attacks on Pofka need to stop. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

 Comment by Pofka I find it hilarious when a clear offender of the rules is reporting others, thus I was planning to report him for this as well. Here is my explanation. User Лобачев Владимир recently uploaded three images of the Coat of arms of Lithuania and in the files descriptions he described two of them as "Russian coat of arms" (see: 1, 2) and in the third (see: 3) he described it as "Principality of Lithuania and Russia" (use translator for this one). We all know that Russia is a state which counts its history (with such name) only since the second half of the 16th century (see: Tsardom of Russia) and Muscovy (present-day Russia) is not equal and not related to Ruthenia (present-day Belarus and Ukraine). Knowing such topics as the Muscovite–Lithuanian Wars, it is an utter absurd to describe the Coat of arms of Lithuania as "Russian". Continuing his disruption, user Лобачев Владимир removed absolutely valid data that these images depicts the Coat of arms of Lithuania (see: 1, 2, 3, as well as 4, 5, 6), despite the fact that such title is used in the English Wikipedia's article about this symbol. This is a perfect proof what kind of internet troll user Лобачев Владимир really is and that his actions are far, far from the neutral point of view and Commons:Assume good faith. Please block this Russian imperialist-propagandist and stop the disruption he is causing in other countries affairs. Otherwise, this troll will probably soon describe other countries coats of arms as "Russian" as well. This trolling certainly must be stopped. -- Pofka (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose This is not a first personal attack on Pofka and the history of Lithuania by Лобачев Владимир who openly follows his Slavic Nazi ideology thus harming the common discourse on Wikipedia. -- Ke an (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that using the original Dutch name of the coat of arms (onde von rusen), created by the author in the 15th century, I am conducting "Russian propaganda" and I glorify the Slavic Nazi ideology? -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Interestingly, this is said by a participant who was blocked on the English Wikipedia for this: nationalist POV-pushing and personal attacks. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
It is nowhere written rusen/Russian, thus it is not surprising that your trolling attempts with these files were rejected by the third-party users (renamers). Stop misleading other users. Everyone can easily read that the last word in this text end with letters FON and it is highly doubtful that the first letter is R. The last word looks like vufon and text "onde bon vufon" (incomprehensible old text) certainly has nothing to do with Russia, which was called Muscovy at the time of the creation of this painting (1430s). Nevertheless, it clearly does not bother you since you obviously simply want to troll in order to purposefully cause disruption on a daily basis. -- Pofka (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

We are really fed up by this conflict going one for months. I suggest you stay from each others for sometimes. Yann (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The conflict will end right away once administrators here disallow attempts to rewrite history through file names. We are waiting. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I am watching them. Anyone editwaring on them will get blocked right away. I consider this section closed. Yann (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Editwarring by Лобачев Владимир has already happened on multiple pages and you did nothing. But until the actual issue has been dealt with, this is not closed. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I already sent a last warning to this user. Yann (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe, that my contribution here clearly suggests that my main and only scope is to to upload files, not to waste time on reverting some user's unauthorized actions, i.e. which are done against Commons:Policies and guidelines. So yes, if the user stays away from anything (files and board) related to me it could be a solution for me. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Unless you're the same person as Лобачев Владимир, you're the one bothering Pofka, not the other way around. So all you need to do to stay out of it is, well, stay out of it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
For a second, I'm an elected administrator as well as a bureaucrat in the Belarusian (be-tarask) Wikipedia with 98 114 manual edits there (and I'm not talking about 48 612 manually uploaded files here, in the Wikimedia Commons). You suggestion that I'm "the same person as Лобачев Владимир", who has 99,877 edits in the Russian Wikipedia (which is not quite friendly project for be-tarask) is not just wrong, it's clearly ridiculous. Maybe, sometimes I'm not very exited of Лобачев Владимир's way of naming the files he uploaded, but it's his right to do so according to Commons:File renaming and if we want to keep an order here the policies should be followed whether you like it sometimes on not. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Then the solution for you is as easy as I said. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
In any case I should emphasize that the same solution is valid for Pofka, since it was they who deliberately started the conflict with Лобачев Владимир by placing (again!) renaming request that didn't follow Commons:File renaming. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
You're incorrect about that, as I've explained already. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Not to tell either of you what to do or anything, but this little side back and forth doesn't really matter now that all the involved parties have been given final warnings and this isn't really the place to discuss the nuances of Commons:File renaming policies anyway. So why not drop it or at least take it to Commons:File renaming's talk page if it really matters that much? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Then don't, or pay attention. Лобачев Владимир got a final warning for editwarring, Pofka has not been warned at all as they did nothing wrong. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:01, 27 August 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.

Shāntián Tàiláng

User:Shāntián Tàiláng is pestering me (and possibly other en.wikt admins) through my talk page and emails through Commons in an attempt to get his block from the English Wiktionary overturned. They were blocked from the English Wikipedia for exactly the same reason. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 08:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that this editor will almost certainly resort to sockpuppetry and IP editing if (read: when) he is blocked. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 08:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I've notified the user. --Túrelio (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Kurator 23

User:Kurator 23 – a new user with provocative and destructive contribution. — Olgerts V (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. --A.Savin 13:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Qve Carajio

User:Qve Carajio - Disruptive edits and edit summaries, threats, some vandalism. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, blocked by RP88. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Rupturestriker

Rupturestriker has a history of repetitiously adding copyrighted images. I dream of horses (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for two weeks, some files deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

User:WiiisbetterthanPS4

User:WiiisbetterthanPS4 is "solves" copyvio suspicion by reverting both template in file and message in talk. Jklamo (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

this persistent and annoying user pretends to know everything. If the file is copyright infringement, the admins will evaluate. WiiisbetterthanPS4 (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@WiiisbetterthanPS4: Only if you leave the tag in place.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Jklamo, removing a message from your talk page is allowed. It means they've read it, so don't post it again. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: Not when it is {{Copyvionote}}, which includes a warning. See also {{Dont remove warnings}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
That 'don't remove warnings' template is not supported by policy. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: It was created by Lar, who was an administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser and oversighter here, some 16 years ago.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Dont remove warnings where the template was kept against consensus. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
That’s your opinion. The fact is no where on Commons is there a policy that states that you can remove warnings and block notices from your talk page. There is a guideline but it is not a policy.
If you want a policy that allows for it, go and propose it on VP. Bidgee (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
It's allowed until there is a policy that says otherwise. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Blocked. Judging by their contributions here and on Wikidata, they're not here to be a useful contributor. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
It was cross-wiki LTA vandal, already globally blocked. Unfornunately, he is editing again today from another account - User:Hannedamgaard. Jklamo (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Hanne Damgaard is or was communications advisor at the company that the logo represents. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: Hannedamgaard can send permission via VRT like everyone else who uploads content that already existed on the web without a free license. Sorry, my tags relied on Jklamo's "today".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I suggest explaining that to them. They're new. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: Which "them"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Jklamo: Wait, Hannedamgaard has not edited in 6 years, 3 months, 3 days and 45 minutes.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

WAEL ALSHIKH HANI ALKURDI

Nonsense categorization, filenames, and descriptions. Possible copyvios. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Clearly NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Second appeal on the topic ban

Per this discussion, A1Cafel is now allowed again to create regular deletion requests (DR). Tags for speedy deletions and timed deletions such as missing permission etc. may still not be applied though. If after three months from today, A1Cafel has shown that their newly created DRs are constructive and successful, the overall topic ban may be appealed at this board. Such an appeal shall include the notification of all participants in the original TBAN discussion. De728631 (talk) 12:39, 31 August 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.

It has been over a year since my topic ban. I'm here to submit another appeal on the topic ban of prohibiting nominating pages for deletion. Here is the thread of my first appeal. But there is no consensus to lift the ban. Over the past months, I have participated some of the DRs with the permission of User:De728631, helped changed the PDMark-owner tag to PD US Government or her child agency, done some of the move in COM:CFD, etc. IMO I have contributed properly on Commons over the past few months. It is an appropriate time to start a new discussion on the appeal of my topic ban. I promised I will not nominate files for speedy deletion even they had FOP issues (because COM:CSD#F3 stated that a discussion is required to see if it can be solved or not). Also, I will not nominate files for speedy deletion if it is not an obvious copyvio (e.g. image found on the source with smaller resolution despite it was first published outside Commons, or other possible disputes on the speedy deletion), regards. A1Cafel (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  •  Comment I do think their understanding of copyright and policies have improved a bit in the last few months, so I think it is OK for them to start opening DRs, while keeping the ban on any other form of deletion nomination (e.g. speedy, no permission, etc.). This will ensure that the community has an opportunity to vet all of their nominations. If they show a pattern of successful DR nominations for a few months, then they can reapply to have the full ban lifted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
    Will all those who commented in the original Topic Ban and first appeal be informed of a proposed full ban lift, in order to allow a vetting and any comments before the decision? -- Ooligan (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
😂😂😂 Matlin (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@Matlin: What is that supposed to mean, in terms of a !vote?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@Matlin: I also don't understand. Do you laugh at me or someone else? --A1Cafel (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support - I would support allowing them to start creating DRs, Like KoH I also see A1 trying to learn and understand our copyright policies here but I think outright lifting the tban would be a major issue, As A1 continues to do the good work that they're doing eventually I would imagine the TBAN would be lifted in all and I hope we do reach that stage evenually, Anyway I support A1 being allowed to create DRs, –Davey2010Talk 20:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Factual Fact Factor

CLOSED:

User has been indef'ed, no point in further discussion. --A.Savin 23:26, 31 August 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.

This user has made polemical deletion requests motivated by a warped version of Indonesian nationalism, especially at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Malay sphere.svg, in which thread they've called everyone else's argument "idiotic" and used words like "bitch" and "lunatic". I don't think we need users like this on Wikimedia, and certainly not on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Calling someone who tryna fixed misleading linguistic information as "nationalist" is really a weird way to express how clueless you are, if any English speaker see the English language clumped into a baseless and lunatic map of "German sphere" they have any rights to complain, because English and German are two different languages, "German" and "Germanic" isn't the same thing, and it also applied to any linguistic family all over the world, "Malay" and "Malayic" isn't the same, and also it's actually better known as "Austronesian" for the correct language family of Indonesian. And I'm not even gonna stop even how many times you called me as "nationalist", because I'm not an ass licker of so-called 'Malay Supremacy' like you. Tausug, Iban, Indonesian, etc. are not "Malay", stop talking nonsense and start use your brain next time. (Factual Fact Factor (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC))
@Ikan Kekek: I warned the user and notified them of this section on their user talk page, as you should have done.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Why should I have done that? I'm not an admin here. Instead, I warned them I'd start a thread here if they continued being rude and abusive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek {{subst:be civil}} does not specify that it is Admin-only. Also, did you not see "Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this." above?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Not to get drawn into any of the substantive issues here, but Ikan did make a bona fide attempt to notify the user at the contentious discussion immediately after filing this report. Taking them to task over procedural correctness is not productive when the spirit was followed. VanIsaac (en.wiki) 18:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Vanisaac: Well ok, excuse me Mr. 'Bona fide attempt'. (Factual Fact Factor (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC))
It's bizarre to think about this as "silencing the opposition." People can make tendentious remarks whenever they like, but if they do that while being insulting and abusive and then block-evade, we should express regret about banning them? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree. Calling someone a bitch or lunatic was, is, and will, never be acceptable. SHB2000 (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
You both have the order of events wrong. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
You're digging a hole for yourself. Whatever you mean by the "order of events" is irrelevant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Please stop the personal attacks, here as well as in the deletion discussion. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Where did I attack you personally? To be clear, I'm saying that defending an abusive block-evader is digging a hole for yourself and could draw suspicion upon you. I don't know you and can only react to what you post. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:06, 31 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_99&oldid=687337922"