Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 100

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

Wikiking666

Wikiking666 seems to be uploading copyrighted images after being blocked for similar behavior. I dream of horses (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

There has been no activity on users account since 10 August. Not disputing that they uploaded files after the block, just commenting that blocking now while they are not active is counter intuitive IMO Gbawden (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@Эlcobbola: Would escalation of your week block to a month be unreasonable?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. One month block (second block). As the last edit is younger than length of block, blocking seems reasonable. And the copyvios were obvious (posters). Taivo (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Extensive copyvio by sock

A sockpuppet, already blocked in enwiki and with the chronic sockmaster and his numerous socks, has falsely and maliciously uploaded copyrighted photographs as his own along with false captions.

These are the ones that have definitely been pilfered from copyrighted sources, other images uploaded by the sock have are likely copyvio (edited to hide the fact). The sock should be blocked and all images uploaded by him deleted. Gotitbro (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@Gotitbro: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Marcel coenders

Has already been warned 2 times in 2015: User_talk:Marcel_coenders#Empty_files and User_talk:Marcel_coenders#Vandalism_warning. But has a few days ago and yesterday done the same thing. Leonel Sohns 15:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

2015 is a long time ago, they've received barnstars since. Where can we see this current vandalism? Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
See the three deletion notifications of the empty files. Leonel Sohns 16:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Looks like a technical issue to me. Have you tried offering help? Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
He has recently created file pages without files. Leonel Sohns 16:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, so something went wrong and they may need a little help. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Guido. This user needs rather help than punishment. Yann (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
He also added a delete tag without a subpage here today.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
While it's ok to have an eye on "wrong" edits etc., this was rather surely not vandalism. In my country, there is the saying „Wer viel arbeitet, macht viele Fehler. Wer wenig arbeitet, macht wenig Fehler. Wer nicht arbeitet, macht keine Fehler, ...“ (Google-translat.: If you work a lot, you make a lot of mistakes. Those who work little make few mistakes.)
Marcel has >1 mio. edits on Commons and uploaded >500k files. So, the upload of some seemingly "wrong" files by this user IMO is insignificant and does not require any administrative action. It's ok to draw his attention to the problem and eventually offer help to identify the cause of the problem. --Túrelio (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Лобачев Владимир continues his malicious trolling

I am sorry to interrupt all of you again, but the issue with this internet troll Лобачев Владимир should be solved once and for all because he simply do not understand civilized approach and continues his malicious trolling, despite multiple warnings.
For those not yet familiar with this issue, I would like to remind you that:

1) User Лобачев Владимир was warned for edit-warring on 25 August 2022 by an administrator Yann (see: 1). One of the main reasons why he was warned was bad faith removal of Wikidata's item (Q188047) from pictures which depict the Coat of arms of Lithuania (see: 1, 2, 3).
2) These pictures of the Coat of arms of Lithuania were uploaded by the same user Лобачев Владимир who was also maliciously trolling by attempting to Russify the Coat of arms of Lithuania by naming and describing these pictures as "Russian coat of arms" (see: 1, 2, 3). Moreover, when these files were properly renamed according to the Commons' file renaming guidelines (see: 1, 2, 3), he attempted to restore these bad faith names, but his aims were noticed and rejected by a neutral third-party file renamer (TommyG) as they did not "comply with renaming guidelines" (see: 1, 2, 3). Seeing that his trolling did not succeeded, user Лобачев Владимир simply blasted with trolling and created two reports about me in the administrators noticeboard (see them here: 1, 2). The result: Лобачев Владимир was once again warned to stop trolling and editwaring on 27 August 2022 (see closure templates of these reports).
3) Users familiar with this situation know that this issue is much, much older (e.g. in order to ensure his bad faith aims he was removing well-motivated renaming templates himself without even allowing the third-parties to intervene, see more information HERE)...

What's new? Three trolling examples in a very short period of time by him again:

1) User Лобачев Владимир clearly did not learned anything and does not care about what other people, including the administrator, are saying to him, thus he continues to malicously troll in Lithuanian topics. Yesterday he once again was provoking an edit warring by removing the same Wikidata's item Coat of arms of Lithuania (see: 1, 2). Such aggressive anti-Lithuanian trolling in an essential Lithuanian topic is an absurd.
2) Moreover, he is aggressively trolling and is attempting to confuse other users in discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/05/Category:Bojca that one of the Coats of arms of Lithuania and one of the primary National symbols of Lithuania (Double Cross of the Jagiellonian dynasty, also known as Cross of Vytis; see also: Lithuanian state award Order of the Cross of Vytis) should be merged/renamed from a neutral English language name "Coats of arms of the House of Jagiellon" to a Slavic languages (Russian/Belarusian/Polish) name "Bojca", but the Lithuanian language is an unrelated non-Slavic Baltic language and it has its own names of this precious symbol (Jogailos dvigubas kryžius, Jogailaičių Dvigubas kryžius, Jogailaičių herbas, Vyčio kryžius). Of course, he is trolling by partly translating Russian/Belarusian texts, not Lithuanian texts and is encouraging to ignore the Lithuanian language in a LITHUANIAN TOPIC (see: 1). This is a pure trolling by once again trying to spread anti-Lithuanian propaganda with a clear aim to discredit Lithuania, its national symbols and language.
3) We certainly all know about the Russo-Ukrainian War and how the propaganda in Russia is trying to do harm to Ukraine alongside the military actions and war crimes. Reacting to Russia's war and crimes in Ukraine, many European countries have adopted laws prohibiting the display and usage of Russian military symbolism, therefore Commons has a dedicated template Template:Russian militarism symbol. One of the users inserted this accurate template to this picture (see: 1), but the same Russian troll removed it on the same day (see: 2). This is clearly because the template has unpleasant words for him and the country he represent: "(symbol) advocating or glorifying wars of aggression or aggressive conduct".

If you compare user Лобачев Владимир's actions at least with the lead texts of articles: Internet troll, Russian web brigades you will easily notice that he is just a Russian internet troll promoting the pro-Russian propaganda and provoking conflicts with aggressive lies. Seeing that he cannot stop even after receiving two strict warnings in one week, he is likely a paid internet troll. I really do not see any way of how his constant malicious trolling actions are compatible with Commons:Assume good faith and other Commons:Policies and guidelines. I think he was given enough chances to stop trolling, but clearly he is mostly here to perform trolling against other countries, not to collaborate in a civil manner and create quality content. User @Guido den Broeder: was right in the previous AN reports that stricter measures should be applied to user Лобачев Владимир who caused edit warring in multiple pages. Since you @Yann: given the last warning to this user and he is acting in the exactly the same way, maybe you or any other administrator could finally close this issue and block this troll? As we are here again after slightly more than a week, then certainly user Лобачев Владимир will cause trolling disruption in Commons again and again in the future if he will not be stopped with a blocking here as he is clearly feeling unstoppable and is seeking his bad faith aims no matter what. Please stop this malicious trolling. -- Pofka (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks! I sincerely hope that this will ensure calmness. Best regards, -- Pofka (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

User:TylerKutschbach resuming disruptive editing after block expired

After their year-long block expired, TylerKutschbach (talk · contribs) immediately resumed their disruptive behavior, revert-warring across multiple files such as File:Minnesota Presidential Election Results 2020.svg. No indication they understood what they did wrong or that their behavior has or will change. Previous thread that resulted in block: TylerKutschbach disruptively editing, edit warring, refusing to listen to other editors despite numerous warnings. Elli (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Indef block, per the Minnesota edit-warring. I, for one, have no patience left for this. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Ping:Elli I don’t want to get into another edit war thing but I fix these svg file maps if a county isn’t the right shading of the vote percentage per election. TylerKutschbach

@TylerKutschbach: that is not the issue. The issue is you repeatedly reverting to worse shapes, even though you know that many other editors disagree with you -- and refusing to discuss with others, or only doing so after being warned numerous times. Elli (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef. --A.Savin 21:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I declined unblock request as inadequate and reblocked Tyler without talkpage access. Taivo (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

User:O Breizh ma bro

O Breizh ma bro (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

User:Ideophagous

Hello, I flagged 5 files of Ideophagous as "missing permission information":

Then he reverted all of my edits under reason ("Sent by the author", again clearly stated), but it clearly stated on {{No permission since}} that "....but there is no proof that the author agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide evidence of permission by either providing a link to a site with an explicit release under a free license or by sending a declaration of consent to confirm copyright ownership by email".

I don't want to enter a war of revert, so I raised this for other administrators. Best --Alaa :)..! 03:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned, files deleted. The first file may be OK, but VRT permission is needed. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hayani cropped.jpg. Yann (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Yann. Best --Alaa :)..! 18:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Nothing more to do here. I would say: follow Multichill's advice. Yann (talk) 19:59, 10 September 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.

Guido den Broeder

After several long-winded arguments, it's time to finally put an end to their ad hominem arguments but for everyone who hasn't had a run-in with this user, I strongly recommend you read Commons:Deletion requests/File:Malay sphere.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guido den Broeder, 2017.jpg. I really don't want to sum up their behaviour because there's a 99% chance that it'll be clearly biased but all I'll say is this user:

The point is, this user makes false, distorted accusations of personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with them while being hypocriticial and doing the same thing in return. It's also worth noting that this user is indeffed on not one, not two, not three but four WMF projects; in particular, note the reason given on Meta: "Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Ad hominem and trolling" highlighting that this is not an isolated incident but rather a pattern of behaviour. Either way, I'm not convinced that this user will reform their behaviour; their presence here is making Commons a less friendly place to edit. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Have notified all users mentioned in question. SHB2000 (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
You have notified Multichill and Ikan Kekek, but no users on my side of your content disputes with me. Let's wait until you've done that. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Why didn't I? Because I linked their accounts and am therefore obliged to notify them. The users who were on your side of (apparently) my content dispute were not mentioned in this thread and therefore I did not have to. SHB2000 (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
And you made sure to link only to them. That's not how we do things here, it comes across as canvassing. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear SHB2000, maybe you should look further. The hassle on 4 projects is a consequence of 2007. Some users could not bear in recent years that they had not won in the end. These other users have been blocked on Wikipedia.nl in the meantime. Not because of the hassle around Guido, but because these users came into conflict with many other users. So SHB2000 watch who you frame and why. Kind regards, Lidewij (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  • If you substitute "bludgeoning" or "badgering" for "bullying" you'll have a pretty typical label to apply to people who respond to lots of other people's comments in a structured on-wiki discussion. That doesn't mean I agree with Guido, but I don't think "bullying" a big problem. The main concern I've had about Guido is that he seems primarily interested in two things on Commons: self-promotion and noticeboard drama. His uploads seem to be himself and his projects, and most of his other edits are to this and related pages. On enwp I'd make a reference to WP:NOTHERE. That said, I don't find the things Guido says all that problematic -- I just wish he'd, you know, do other stuff, too. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  14:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
    I wish that too but unfortunately, I am very limited by being severely ill. Occasionally helping out on the noticeboards is something I can do, given many years of experience as administrator. I don't see however how uploading some pictures is self-promotion just because they are pictures of activities that I have engaged in. The single photo of me wasn't uploaded by me. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Admin noticeboards are the highest-drama places in most projects - there are hot tempers and complex issues, and Commons adds the complication that users are often not communicating in their native language. Save for perhaps the very rare person with exceptional skills at conflict resolution and de-escalation, they're not a place that any given user should be making most of their edits. Administration experience in other arenas does not always translate well to Commons, and your minimal experience here in core content functions (file uploading, curation, and categorization) means that you don't have the context to understand how a lot of conflicts evolve. Inserting oneself into a tense discussion can often backfire and create more animosity.
I would suggest that you stay away from the admin boards and other likely controversial areas until you have more experience on this project. The time and effort you're able to offer here would be much better served doing content work - uploading public domain files from online archives, curating and categorizing existing files, or tagging copyvios and spam. Commons always needs more helping out in those areas; it rarely needs more attention on the drama boards. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I've been here since 2008. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@Lidewij C J.: Personally, I don't really care if I have to drop the stick, but this is not about a content dispute, this is about their unacceptable and outrageous behaviour – this is not a one-off incident but rather a pattern of behaviour which makes me think that they're only here to stir up dramas. Additionally, their meta block is from 2018 so not all their blocks were from 2007. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
SHB2000, you have not understood it and you are making your own interpretation. I wrote: The hassle on 4 projects was a result of 2007. (yes these were years later) Some users couldn't bear to end up winning nothing. After that time (2007) WP was monitored/actions worldwide by these users.
Here and now it is about what is now and not what was before. Kind regards, Lidewij (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Completely missed my point. There was a discussion on meta about their behaviour (see m:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2018-11#Guido den Broeder) and later indeffed by -revi so I repeat, not all of their were a result from 2007. What I'm noticing in every discussion about their behaviour is Guido has a tendency to attack other editors who disagree with them. If they haven't learned from their behaviour from four Wikimedia projects, I'm not convinced that they'll reform their behaviour now. SHB2000 (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Never in my life have I attacked someone for disagreeing with me. I will address harassment, bullying, and similar poor behavior, like I got from you. There's a difference. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
m:User talk:-revi/Archives/2018#Public speakers? SHB2000 (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that if you're actually interested, you start at the page on Meta that got vandalized. The management of that page was my only activity there. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Jeff G.'s global lock request

First, some facts.

  • I am not blocked on four projects and banned on a fifth, as Jeff claims. I am only blocked on two projects, nl:Wikipedia and en:Wikipedia. The other two blocks are not projects and there is no ban on any fifth project. The block on nl:Wikipedia is ancient, unrelated to my global account. It follows that there is only en:Wikipedia to consider and that I don't qualify for a global lock, no matter how much Jeff or anyone else wants to see that happen for reasons unknown.
  • My blocks and especially the one on en:Wikipedia have been discussed at length at multiple venues, including criticism sites and the WMF, in these cases as a horrid example of bad administration. All the main instigators of my blocks have been desysoped and banned (one of them was in fact WMF-banned) for abusing their powers.
  • I have a single, fixed IP. I furthermore don't live in Amsterdam nor in England, so the claimed geolocation evidence is bogus, nor can I use English IP addresses, as was claimed by some.
  • Jeff's list of claimed sockpuppets is far from complete. Among others, at least a dozen accounts have been blocked indefinitely on the accusation of being either me or Angela Kennedy, who is no longer alive to defend herself, for no other reason than that they confirmed that their and my disease is very real, when en:Wikipedia keeps saying it doesn't exist.
  • There is no CU evidence supporting any of the sockpuppet allegations, in fact there is evidence to the contrary that got ignored.

This seems enough for today, we'll discuss all the individual blocks later. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I am copying some comments and partial comments from meta so I can reply. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm copying SHB2000's comment below since they won't move it.

  • (...) then what is w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guido den Broeder/Archive#11 September 2019? SHB2000 (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    Did you read it in full? It says that CU confirmed some of the accounts to be of the same person, but not that they were mine, which apparently confused some of the participants in that discussion. They were claimed to be mine solely because they shared an interest with me, which is not how such a conclusion can be made. They furthermore missed that on nl:Wikipedia my IP had been locked, and therefore was known to be different from The Jolly Bard's. In 2017, en:Wikipedia Arbcom already found this investigation quite unconvincing as well as moot, which is why they unblocked me. The later entry by ToniBallioni is fake. He rarely does CU and in fact explicitly refused to do so, claiming that I had access to numerous IPs (false, I've always had just one) so it wouldn't mean anything. However at the time someone performed illegal CUs of all new users, and they knew Almond Plate's IP to be different from mine, but this was never considered. Toni had asked for a sockpuppet investigation out of process and then 'performed' it himself, while he and others were harassing me off-wiki. They wanted Almond Plate to go because he opposed a resysop of Fram, and was getting close to the truth. Claiming him to be me was a convenient way. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    I just discovered that one of the admins involved in that fake investigation later marked my renamed, password-scrambled initial local account on en:Wikipedia as being my sock, too. It doesn't get much more laughable and pathetic than that. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

 Comment Jeff G.'s global lock request has been denied so we need not discuss it any further. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This is indeed not related to this request. A very weak closure following wrong procedural considerations, which I indeed will contest through the proper means, can't be used to void this request. Vituzzu (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 Comment This whole discussion is a strange mixture of filibustering, red herrings, and procedural tricks. And it all starts from exactly one party. What a waste of time and resources! --Smial (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
A waste of my limited time and energy in particular, and detrimental to my health. So lets not do this again. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Vituzzu, I'm really not interested in your opinion, because you refuse hear the actual facts and circumstances. The request was opposed by a vast majority of seasoned administrators and users in the know, and only supported by someone on the other side of a recent content dispute. Live with it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
"I'm really not interested in your opinion" – if you're not interested in hearing someone else's opinion, then what makes you think everyone else should hear your opinion? Not that I'm saying your opinion shouldn't be heard (it should be, and that's why we have discussions like these), but you on the other hand also need to respect the opinions of others, in this case, Vituzzu's. SHB2000 (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I respect informed opinions, not an echoing of lies. That is exactly why I left Wikipedia behind, exercising my right to disappear, over a decade ago. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay, you may have left Wikipedia behind a decade ago but that did not answer my question. Either way, that's a discussion for another day. SHB2000 (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
This is the answer to your question. Incessantly repeating the same question again and again after it has already been answered is exactly what you were doing in the deletion discussion. Don't do that, and certainly don't continue doing that after the other user has already told you they feel bullied by it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
"I respect informed opinions, not an echoing of lies" is a statement, not an answer. SHB2000 (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Unblock requests for other wikis

I want to file unblock requests for several other wikis but I have no way of communicating with them. It didn't bother me much before because I have no intention of contributing there ever again. However, as you have seen, these old blocks are now affecting Commons as they are repeatedly brought up in content discussions. I am therefore asking permission to post my requests here, for instance on this noticeboard or in my user space, then ask for someone to move them to my talk pages or the relevant boards on these other wikis. All help is welcome. Sincerely, Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Why that would be worth doing given that "This user is, of their own volition, no longer active on Wikimedia Commons." according to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
So that this message can be withdrawn. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
For enwiki: please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block - have you used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unblock_Ticket_Request_System ? Or got banned also there? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Attempted contact was closed within seconds with no explanation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for the rest but I can say with certainty you don't stand a chance in hell of ever being unblocked at EN - your block at Meta and other projects have sealed that deal. I would strongly advise yourself nor anyone else goes to EN or Meta and advocates unblocking you because it will simply be a waste of time, effort and resources,
Actions have consequences, You'll just need to learn with these hinderances. –Davey2010Talk 22:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I've been unblocked on en:Wikipedia and Meta before, in spite of similar arguments made by other people that didn't know the facts. The user responsible on en:Wikipedia was desysoped and WMF-banned for their abuse of power against me and others. However, I would agree with you that the order is important. An unblock on Meta shouldn't be too hard, if only I could reach them. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Did you ask one of the admins involved in m:User talk:Guido den Broeder to restore talk page access? If yes, what was their answer? Yann (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I have no way to communicate with them. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder you say "An unblock on Meta shouldn't be too hard, if only I could reach them" - What makes you think Meta would unblock you ?, You were blocked 4 times in the space of a year at Meta before being unblocked but then you were reblocked 3 days later for a week for "ad hominem and personal attacks, RFH abuse" and then fast forward 7 years you were indeffed which has remained ever since ..... So what makes you think Meta will have you back?
(I feel I ought to add I'm not trying to lecture you - my block logs here and at EN are as long as my arm but I'm just curious about your Meta unblocking opinion), Thanks –Davey2010Talk 19:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
The facts, and Vermont opposing the global lock request. Cheers, Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder People opposing the global lock request doesn't mean they want you back .... They're opposing because locking you out of ALL WMF Wikis is OTT, I would imagine those opposers there would still support you remaining blocked there. Anyway I've given my 2p and you're free to ignore me and do what you see best, Have a great day, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Guido, if you really want to be a useful contributor: Pick one ore more projects, start contributing yourself and stay away from these noticeboards. If you pick Commons start uploading photos and curating files. Stay from all the meta things and just do useful things. If you are able to do that or at least half a year without getting into problems, consider trying to get yourself unblocked on any of the other projects. Multichill (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I am a useful contributor, and have been since 2007. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Continuation of initial discussion

Then Guido should be more than familiar with the behavior that is expected of editors and contributors. If anything, we should be expecting a higher standard when it comes to commons:AGF and long-time editors, and Guido has been falling incredibly short at the two deletion discussions mentioned. It is also highly concerning that they don't seem to have learned from their blocks at other WMF projects. Maybe just taking a timeout to reflect on their actions and how to engage constructively with other editors would be useful and a show to those of us who are concerned about their behavior an assurance that they are interested in working with the members of this community instead of against us. VanIsaac (en.wiki) 20:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Not sure how I should learn from being called a pedophile, but I trust that you will explain that to me now. The instigator got themselves desysoped and WMF-banned over this, by the way. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
That's a very serious accusation that is completely unattested at either of the mentioned pages. So for those of us who have only seen your behavior, could you please provide a diff to support that accusation, and how that diff actually relates to your behavior at those two deletion discussions? Because the only blocked editor I can see at either of those pages is the sockpuppets of User:Eiskrahablo. VanIsaac (en.wiki) 21:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that you contact the WMF. My point is that it does not relate to anything here so you, SHB2000 and Multichill should stop pointing to these unrelated blocks. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, since it is "not related to anything here", I would strongly suggest that you strike out that comment and keep this discussion focused on yours and others' actions at the two indicated pages, unless you believe there are diffs at other pages from involved editors that would add context to your actions that are so concerning to many of us. VanIsaac (en.wiki) 23:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
As soon as you withdraw your comment that you find it highly concerning that I did not learn from those blocks. Don't make such statements again when you know nothing about it, but instead provide diffs for where you expect a higher standard so I can actually reply to that. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
And there comes the ad hominem again. How do you know that Vanisaac knows nothing about your blocks? SHB2000 (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
The same way I know that you, Jeff G. and Bidgee know nothing about them, while Multichill does, as well as others like Almond Plate who are mentioned but were not notified. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: What is the point of notifying your sock Almond Plate when it is globally locked?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
If they were my sock and globally locked, then how could I have kept editing? Almond Plate was active in Fram's case, that's why. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
"If they were my sock" – then what is w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guido den Broeder/Archive#11 September 2019? SHB2000 (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Excellent question. Feel free to post it in the appropriate subsection. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Those blocks are not "unrelated" because you're doing exactly what landed you an indef ban on meta. SHB2000 (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
You don't know why I am blocked - not banned - on Meta. We haven't discussed that and we're not about to do that either as things stand. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Right and there comes the ad hominem again. I clearly read m:Special:PermaLink/18737742 and you were banned because there was consensus to ban you on meta. Please exercise some thought before you comment – you may know better than me on why you got banned but not what's on my mind. SHB2000 (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Please stop accusing me of 'ad hominem' when there's nothing there. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
"You don't know why I am blocked". SHB2000 (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
"Not sure how I should learn from being called a pedophile" - where it happened? Please explain (preferably: provide link to a diff) or admit that it was lie or deliberately misleading and apologise for it. If neither happens I support block for extreme trolling based on this alone. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, where it got oversighted, in 2017. Contact the WMF if you must. Don't call people a liar when you've never heard of the biggest abuse case in the history of the WMF in length, number of participants, seriousness, and outcome, that shook the foundation of Wikipedia, of which this was a part (there were other victims as well). Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: I question what "good work" has Guido done here or on any WMF project for that matter. If you haven't already, I suggest you read Bidgee's comment on meta (see m:Special:Diff/23758250) because a good 66.2 per cent of their edits are to the Commons namespace where there are more than enough users required to resolve whatever it be and a further 9.6 per cent are on user talk pages and that's not to mention that about half of those weren't very constructive. Either way, this account is being used for lock evasion and their current behaviour won't change that. SHB2000 (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
You see what you want to see. Bidgee's diffs can easily be said to show how I remain calm and collected when faced with false accusations and frivolous deletion requests. I know nothing about any locks. I have a single, fixed IP and as you can see I am able to edit with it, as I have been doing continuously on the many projects where I am not blocked. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
If you really "know nothing about any locks", then care to explain Wegwezen, The Jolly Bard, Jarold Blythe, Betholly Jard, Almond Plate, AP 20191223, Jyl Boldheart, Rothly Bladje, and Saint Jut (list copied from Jeff G.'s SRG request)? SHB2000 (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
We'll get to that. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, I tried. It doesn't really seem to me like Guido is interested in working collegially with other contributors. They may have been productive in the past, but that doesn't negate that others on this project should not have to put up with those kinds of behaviors. Regrettably, I think I would have to support sanctions on the basis of ongoing behavioral problems that the editor is unwilling to change. VanIsaac (en.wiki) 02:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    Since you're unwilling to provide any evidence for these 'ongoing behavioral problems' and similar allegations, this is entirely unhelpful. FYI providing your view in a deletion discussion is working collegially with other editors. There is no requirement to have the same opinion as others. An administrator will come, weigh the various views, and make a decision. While suboptimal, this is how things are done here and you should respect everyone's input as long as it's genuine. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment For my part, while I think Guido's behavior in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Malay sphere.svg and the ANU thread on User:Factual Fact Factor have been ridiculous, I don't didn't consider that that in isolation requires required a userban or other penalties, without prejudice to any of the patterns of behavior or other issues being brought up, which I lack personal knowledge of. I'd also like to express sympathy toward him for being severely ill, which could easily cause anyone to be very irritable but doesn't really justify the behavior documented and linked above or a refusal to concede to being wrong. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
    For my part, I don't think that any action towards you is necessary either, nor do you or anyone else have to concede to being wrong. I consider all genuine opinions valuable, they just don't need to be repeated over and over. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not at issue here, nor is trying to get you to admit that files in use in good faith should not be deleted inappropriate or "bullying". Would you like to convince me to support action against you, or will you quit while you're ahead and refrain from replying to me further? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
    It's incorrect to assume there can't be any consequences to what you're saying here. This is not just another venue where you can repeat demanding in ever harsher tone that someone joins your side in a deletion discussion, or else. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
    Do you think people other than you see a demand? If you continue lashing out, you should be disciplined. You would be well-advised to accept my statement that no discipline against you is needed based on my own experience so far (without prejudice to any other points brought up in this thread), because the more you insist on having the last word, the more I'll reconsider. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    You're still misunderstanding the purpose of this noticeboard. There is no policy to discipline anyone, we are all volunteers here. Blocking is only preventive with the sole purpose of protecting the project, almost exclusively from ongoing vandalism or continuous copyright violations. Issues between users we solve. However, when users keep escalating here, trying to play boss, displaying unwillingness to end a dispute, that presents a separate problem. Peace? Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment One deletion discussion has been closed (keep, while pointing readers to rename), the other is on hold for a month. Jeff G.'s global lock proposal has been opposed by multiple users. Hopefully we have all learned something. Shall we move on? Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    I !vote nay. That's just a snarky way to move on without coming to a resolution. SHB2000 (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm done with this topic, since SHB2000 is bludgeoning it to death just like they did in the deletion discussion that brought us here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment You're reminding me of Donald Trump. It's so sad that everyone is "attacking" you by bringing up things that you refuse to discuss. At this point, I wish you would be banned, because you have shown me so far that you are non-constructive and also that you are indignant when called for violating policy by doing things like supporting the deletion of files in use. Everyone, watch him try to make the reply about me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    We delete numerous files in use every day. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Guido, is there anything preventing me from blugeoning this to death? (and the answer to that is no) You still deny your disruptive and troublesome behaviour and just so I don't sound like a broken record, I will continue arguing until we actually come to a resolution. Either drop the stick and accept that your conduct has been unacceptable and take back your accusations of "bullying" or suffer the consequences. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not the one holding a stick. If you had simply asked me to change a word that for whatever reason you found offensive, I would have happily done so. Instead, you chose to escalate to ridiculous heights and now you're telling me that you will never stop. I don't see how we can avoid an interaction ban now, and there it should end. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. To all: please discuss above subjects elsewhere. The block request is closed. Ellywa (talk) 18:14, 9 September 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:2600:1700:E881:4550:E4EB:6ACF:B9C:1D18

2600:1700:E881:4550:E4EB:6ACF:B9C:1D18 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Han Mi Nyeo

Please do a CheckUser on Han Mi Nyeo. They might be Jurisdrew. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: Requests for CheckUser with evidence belong at COM:RFCU.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Giseletuy

This user appears to be making copies of existing Commons photos and reuploading them while claiming "own work". I've marked a few of them for speedy deletion as duplicates. Other uploads appear to have COM:NETCOPYVIO issues. This user has so many uploads that help is needed reviewing them. Any assistance would be appreciated. Marbletan (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I've tagged 22 files as copyvios, most were uncredited (makes CC-license void) copies of others images on Commons, few were external copyvios, and put 3 low-res images w/o metadata in a DR. For a number of landscape-images no external hits were found. --Túrelio (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for taking the time to review and process all the images. Marbletan (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Han Mi Nyeo (again)

This user is spamming DiKnK8713's and my own talk page. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Next blocks can be longer. Taivo (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Thrakkx

This user has been involved repeatedly uploading of non-free files, but also flickrwashed two times.

Six files were deleted so far as a result for blocking:

--2001:4451:82BB:7100:55DC:E790:D622:E92 23:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. Except for the last one these were deleted in 2020/21, and that last one was uploaded in good faith. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: Six files were deleted due to COM:NETCOPYVIO. 2001:4451:82BB:7100:55DC:E790:D622:E92 23:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
This unregistered user is the Wikipedia editor Aesthetic Writer, a sockpuppet of SwissArmyGuy, who was banned long ago for unsettling reasons. I don't really know why, but this editor has been harassing me for about a year now. They are hellbent on getting me to be punished in some form.
If I need to defend myself, obviously I have been learning how copyright works through trial and error, hence the many deleted files over the course of two years. Thrakkx (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Would you please explain this file File:Casting a bell.jpg was deleted under "© Rob Fritsen/SIRIS", as for flickrwashing? 2001:4451:82BB:7100:55DC:E790:D622:E92 23:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
No. Just give this up already. Thrakkx (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
No need to defend yourself. You're doing fine. If the unregistered user continues in this manner they'll get blocked, sock or no sock. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: This user has insisted Thrakkx who acted as intimidation, while I'm requesting this admin (Achim55) to block this user via talk page. Also, Jeff G. threatened me to block an IP address as part of my discussion. 2001:4451:82BB:7100:55DC:E790:D622:E92 11:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

 Info: The range Special:Contributions/2001:4451::/32 is blocked on 5 projects, on 3 of them for 1 year. For some more blocks inside that range see ST. --Achim55 (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Public domain vs. all rights totally reserved

I got contradictory information about File:SignatureDraganFlaviu.png. On one hand, the license applied says being released by its author into the public domain, on the other hand there was a mention of "all rights totally reserved" (in Romanian language). Could someone tell the author that maybe releasing it into public domain might not really be what he wants. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. Uploader resolved the copyright problem, removing "all rights totally reserved" statement. But I nominated the file nevertheless for regular deletion due to missing educational value: uploader's unused personal signature. Taivo (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiceylon.pvt

Wikiceylon.pvt (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  : this new user uploads images and flags a village in Sri Lanka that seems doubtful, claiming it is "The Duchy of Nakulugamuwa" and even a selfie of him as the Duke. I notified the user but an administrator should look into the case. Pierre cb (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I do not block the user, because he stopped after warning, but I will delete all his uploads as out of scope or copyright violations. Taivo (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

User:David C. S. 2

NoonIcarus (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#David C. S.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. One month block (second block). I did not revert the file, but you can do that, if you like. Taivo (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

User:CloudGuyRules

This user has editwarred on File:Monsters-Resurrected-Spinosaurus.jpg, insisting to remove the copyvio tag for nonsensical reasons and hasn't stopped it. Magnatyrannus (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Several copyvios deleted, user warned. Given their edit comments, which indicate the copyvios are intentional, any further bad uploads will get a block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Pi.1415926535, Also, this user is a sock of an already locked user:
meta:Special:CentralAuth/AnusBagelBites Magnatyrannus (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535 Also, if he makes a post on my talk page again please block him. Magnatyrannus (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Locked globally by Sotiale for socking & VOA. --Achim55 (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@Magnatyrannus: I filed the m:srg report of lock evasion for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

User:DrKay

DrKay has been repeatedly removing license claims from two images that the individual has nominated for deletion and has been inserting speedy deletion notices on the file pages in their stead. Both the nomination for deletion and the removals of the license claims have been contested, yet the edit seems intent on edit warring a speedy deletion tags into the file pages when there is a credible claim of files being in the public domain.

Their edits include:

Their edits have been challenged by multiple editors, including Knowledgekid87 and me, and I asked the editor to stop edit warring, but the editor simply deleted my talk page message and has not self-reverted.

They have claimed that their actions are supported by Commons:License review and invoked their status as a license reviewer, but this does not appear to justify their edits given that the deletion of claims that they disagree with is found nowhere in those instructions. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Which means that you are editwarring as well. Don't do that. While non-standard and not required I can see where DrKay is coming from: this was deleted before. Adding a note to the deletion discussion that the license claim was removed should prevent any misunderstandings. I don't see a speedy deletion notice. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Reverting somebody twice, engaging in discussion, leaving a message on the user's talk page, and allowing them to have their preferred version of the page pending discussion is not edit warring. When a user is not willing to self-revert pending discussion, and makes 3+ reverts so that their preferred version of a page sticks, that is edit warring. The point in me coming here is that the editor whose name is at the top of this section is not willing to restore stable version of the file description page pending the closure of the DR, and I have no interest in making any additional reverts myself. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
You and Knowledgekid87 reverted 6 times in total, and neither version was ever stable. As it happens, I agree with DrKay's preference. The subject is currently a hot news item and readers unfamiliar with our processes would think that the file actually is PD, and use it everywhere. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect, the last deletion discussion received little input and no linked to rationale was provided for the CSD tag for these images other than "this was deleted before" or something like that. Im looking online right now and see attribution to "BETTMANN/CORBIS" for Getty images. [12], [13] The picture was also posted by the royal family @theroyalfamily [14], although I do not have access to Instagram. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
And you can talk about that in the deletion discussion, which is not here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
You are the one who brought up PD though? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose any administrative action at this time. Users are no longer editwarring. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Close with admonishment, in retrospect why edit war over a template if the file is nominated for deletion? If the tag really has no basis then it would be deleted per consensus along with the file. I'm going with admonishment because edit warring is never a good thing to do, even if you think that you are right. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Nakshaputra copyvios

Nakshaputra seems intent on uploading only copyvio images from films and cartoons. Their response to the deletion of these is to re-upload them, without engaging in discussion. BD2412 T 21:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Warned, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: They already had warnings at 19:00 and 19:43.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week. Files were deleted, but this user was not warned for them, so I had a wrong impression. Yann (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Useddenim

Useddenim (talk · contribs)

Can soneone stop this user from editing categories. They make undiscussed changes to categories that appear to be in violation of the relevant Commons guideline. This despite my request on their talk page. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Just six weeks ago Enhancing999 (talk · contribs) was cautioned about adding BSicons to unrelated categories. He has now started creating categories for BSicons for no apparent reason (other than his fascination with dead-end train stations) that do not follow Commons:Categories nor Commons:WikiProject BSicon (specifically "maintaining that [existing] categorization"). Furthermore, the files that he has added to his new categories (particularly the ones "with additional features‎") actually have little in common and are all lumped together from individual specific subcategories into his overly-broad newly-created ones.
If any sanctions are to be imposed, they should be against Enhancing999 working in Category:BSicon and disregarding all the work that has been done by others there. Useddenim (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Useddenim seems to be aware that the move is controversial and, rather than discussing it first, they persist in moving things around without discussion, just because they think it's "correct". We may want to consider withdrawing their access to the category move function, especially they resort to personal attacks rather attempting to justify why they may have moved it appropertly. Interestingly, they omit mentioning another discussion, but as it's not relevant to the access issue, let's focus on that. Enhancing999 (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Recapping an editor's actions is not a personal attack. And if another discussion is not relevant, then even mentioning it is a straw man argument. Useddenim (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
It's clear you don't understand the reasons for the edits and the categorization, but "creating categories .. for no apparent reason (other than his fascination" is hardly a neutral worded recap.
Obviously, you can't really learn about the reason if you just delete it and don't resort to the usually community approach to such questions. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
So please do explain your rationale. I await with anticipation... Useddenim (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Seeing that they now go on deleting categorizations, supposedly their access to categorization should somehow be limited. How can this be done? Enhancing999 (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Enhancing999, Useddenim is entirely correct here. There is a long-established and very specific categorization scheme for BSicons, which Useddenim has informed you of multiple times, and you are completely ignoring it. If you continue your disruptive editing, you will be the one blocked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Useddenim hasn't really informed before doing any changes to this category.
I have been asked by Useddenim to clean up the mess created by BSicon's terminology to Commons. Now they disrupt this cleanup by making undiscussed changes to move content to categories they consider themselves incorrect. I don't really see how much more negative disruption could come from Useddenim. Enhancing999 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
@Enhancing999: , I believe what you are referring to is my suggestion that you could help with better file descriptions, replacing the vague "Image for BSicon diagrams" that is used on many pages. I did not tell you to go and begin creating arbitrary categories. Useddenim (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is Enhancing999's disruptive editing to BSicons that should be stopped. Useddenim (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Enhancing999’s BSicon categorization has been, at best, an irrelevant annoyance for all other users and mantainers of this specific subcat tree. Having the gall to come to ANU to complain against Useddenim shows that this user will escalate from mildy irritating yet ignorable makework to wasting admin’s time and causing unneeded stress to editors, forcing everybody to waste time discussing what should be obvious to anyone envolved. This user’s pontificating chutzpah further suggests eagerness (and indeed talent) to mimic competence where there is none (the current established practice in BSicon categorization and its guideline conformance was built against the wishes of a single such user in the past, largely thanks to Useddenim). Apparently Enhancing999 wont stop and should therefore be stopped. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
And FWIW, Enhancing999 didn't bother to follow proper notification procedure for an ANI complaint, all the while railing against me for not following guidelines and standards. (Which, BTW, do not require discussion when fixing blatant errors, and reverting disruptive editing and vandalism.) Useddenim (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I attempt to discuss this with you first, but you chose not to respond, but to redo your changes once more. Only after being notified of this discussion you chose to respond (here and elsewhere). I suggest you undo your edits and follow the proper approach for category discussions, something you apparently know how to do. [15]. Enhancing999 (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I saw your reverts first and started fixing those before I noticed your comment on my talk page. Assume good faith and don't try to read nefarious intent into it. Useddenim (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
You claimed not being properly notified prior to the report here.
So you didn't seek to discuss when you saw that your view wasn't shared ? Enhancing999 (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Enhancing999, you seem to be either oblivious to or willfully ignorant to the fact that you created new categories contrary to Commons:Categories:
Selectivity principle

We should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category.

Your Category:BSicon for terminus stations with additional features was overly-broad and just a catch-all for anything that wasn't a simple dead-end terminal station.
How to use categories

It is rarely necessary to create a new category ... Before doing so, make sure you are familiar with the existing category structure, and with the customs and policies of the Commons. Please see if there exists a category scheme or a commons project for your topic, and follow the conventions described there.

You apparently simply ignored this entire section. Yes, new categories are regularly added within Category:BSicon, but that is because new icons are constantly being created and diffusion is necessary. I don't know if you bothered to familiarize yourself with the existing BSicon category structure, or checked Commons:WikiProject BSicon or the BSicon page, but you most certainly did not apply the last five words of the instruction above.
Did you even bother to check Category:Commons category schemes? Please just drop the stick and back away from the dead horse and stop wasting my and others' time. Useddenim (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Matteo sportelli

At Category:Wonder Wheel, User:Matteo sportelli repeatedly keeps putting a false size for the wheel (off by a factor of about 4.5). I have reverted him twice with edit summaries (he has not used edit summaries) and after my second revert I commented about the matter on his user talk page. Given his other edits (several of which I've also had to modify), I suspect this could be incompetence rather than deliberate vandalism, but if I revert him again I'll be violating 3RR myself. Would someone else please have a look at the situation? - Jmabel ! talk 15:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I have undone the obviously incorrect information. For what it's worth, this individual is also editing with IP address 2.45.120.23 (talk · contribs). Marbletan (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@Marbletan: Actually, his edits you reversed at File:Ferris Wheel Ain Dubai in Dubai 02.jpg seem factually accurate, albeit in the wrong places on the page. I'll restore that in a better form. - Jmabel ! talk 17:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, wait, it's an FOP violation & will get deleted anyway, never mind. - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
In any case, I think you're right about those edits by 2.45.120.23. I was misreading it. Marbletan (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The copyright of this ferris wheel is not obvious. It is not a building, and it is not clear what is structurally necessary and what is original design. Yann (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

User:1970gemini

Main problem is their constant habit of overwriting files with their own poorly edited versions, seemingly using some automated software process without properly assessing the result. Some examples: creating a weird pattern in the halftone dots [16] -- oversharpening [17] -- loss of detail [18] -- overcorrection that emphasizes the craquelure and cold sidelights [19].

They don't actually state what kind of changes they perform, their standard upload comment is "endschleiart", which may be supposed to be a funny version of "entschleiert" ("removing the haze"), but some of their corrections actually add haze and some peculiar oversharpening.

Many of their own uploads are extremely overprocessed scans [20] [21] [22], probably of printed images, that show banding and other artifacts, which must be a poor representation of the originals and leaves no room for improvements by more skilled users. I tried to contact them, but their reaction was pure arrogance without answering any of my points. On their talk page, starting in 2012, you find many users complaining about unwanted, failed "quality updates", and there seems to be no learning curve in the last ten years. 1970gemini's edits often are controversial and therefore not supported by Commons:Overwriting existing files. Sitacuisses (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 Comment I warned this user, and reverted some uploads. Any further overwriting should lead to a block. Yann (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Wirklich? Und schon haben wir ihn von vornherein verurteilt.
Dann will ich mal, obwohl dies bei einer Mauer der Arroganz nichts helfen wird, mich auf die imho haltlosen Anschuldigungen äußern...
  • creating a weird pattern in the halftone dots - ja, aber es handelt sich um eine sw-Aufnahme.
  • [File:Meyers Geographischer Handatlas 1912-Tsingtau.jpg oversharping] - Wirklich? Oder viel näher an der Wahrheit als der Scan von 2010? Mein Scanner ist dem von vor 12 Jahren um Längen überlegen.
  • loss of detail - muss ich mich dazu äußern! Schaut doch mal nach, wer das Bild damals eingestellt hat...
  • overcorrection that emphasizes the craquelure and cold sidelights - die zurückgesetzte Version ist nicht Wirklichkeitsverzerrender?
  • I tried to contact them, but their reaction was pure arrogance without answering any of my points. - blindwütiges revidieren erhitzt Gemüter. [Category:Katharineum – Kriegsfreiwillige – 1914: soetwas] sagt mir nicht ich will eine gemeinsame Lösung finden, sondern eher das ist in meiner (eingeschränkten) Sichtweise nicht tollerabel und wird kommentarlos gelöscht Das ist imho die Meinung eines Trolls und für jene gilt: "Troll Dich!" Deine spätere Erklärung, die ich erst eben gelesen habe, wäre vorher förderlicher gewesen.
  • schauen wir doch einmal [File:Hermann Baethcke.jpg hierauf]. Das Bild ist von mir eingestellt worden und dann von Concord in einer besseren ond größeren Version, da nicht aus einer Zeitung stammend, eingestellt worden. Die Arroganz wie ein probably Thora Thomsen bei der Autorin "was in der Zeitung steht, das glaubt man nicht - selbst wenn es die Wahrheit spricht" wird geflissentlich übersehen. Aber er hat einen geliebten Standartfehler gemacht: Ich habe hier einen Farbscan eines sw-Bildes und halte es für unverzichtbar die unfreiwillig colourierte Version (man beachte seine Glatze) hier einzustellen. Habe mit allen "Lübeck"-Autoren geredet und alle, bis auf einen, haben mir das ok zur Schwarzweißierungen gegeben. Sitacuises und Yann scheinen hier anderer Meinung zu sein und die verfälschte Version zum Schaden Wikis hochzuhalten.
  • "On their talk page, starting in 2012, you find many users complaining about unwanted, failed "quality updates", and there seems to be no learning curve in the last ten years." - Sicher, wo gehobelt wird fallen Späne, aber ich mache das seit über zehn Jahren und die Meng der negativen Reaktionen ist im Gegensatz zu den getätigten Verbesserungen marginal. Der zitierte Satz ist prima, aber er ist mit der derzeitigen russischen Propaganda im Ukrainekrieg gleichzusetzen und entsprechend hier zu bewerten.

Man stelle sich einmal folgende Frage: Wenn 1970gemini ein solcher, wie hier behauptet, ist und seine Aktionen folglich Wiki nur schaden, warum ist er noch nie gesperrt oder blockiert worden? Das passt doch nicht zusammen...

1970gemini (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Despite Yann's warning, 1970gemini has overwritten another file. Unfortunately, their only reaction is to deny the problem, including some nonsensical arguments in the above statement that only prove that they don't understand what they're talking about. I'll continue in German to adress 1970gemini.
@1970gemini, deine teils absurden Antworten oben bestätigen, dass du nicht weißt, was du hier tust. Du weißt anscheinend nicht, was ein Druckraster ist und wie man damit am besten in Scans umgeht. Du scheinst zu glauben, ein Scanner wäre für Bildbearbeitung zuständig. Nein, dafür braucht es einen Bediener, der sich mit den technischen Hintergründen von Fotografie, Druck und Bildbearbeitung auskennt, damit nicht so ein Pixelbrei herauskommt wie erneut in deinen neuesten Scans. Wem soll mit diesem Ergebnis gedient sein? Bei diesem Bild hast du inzwischen fünf verschiedene Versionen hochgeladen, mal heller, mal dunkler, die letzten drei in diesem Jahr. Das müsste doch auch dir selbst vor Augen führen, dass du nicht weißt was du tust. Anscheinend arbeitest du nicht mit kalibrierter Hardware und bekommst dann je nach zufälliger Bildschirmhelligkeit unterschiedliche Bearbeitungsergebnisse. Und mit diesen Zufallsergebnissen überschreibst du nicht nur deine eigenen Uploads, sondern auch die anderer User. Und ja, auch deine eigenen Uploads verschlimmbesserst du auf diese Weise.
Auch wenn du hier bisher nicht gesperrt wurdest, heißt das nicht, dass deine Arbeit immer gut ist. Beispielsweise wirst du, außer den Ansprachen auf deiner Disk., auch mal ganz unauffällig und wortlos vom Original-Uploader revertiert [23]. Viele Uploader bemerken deine "Verbesserungen" vermutlich auch gar nicht, weil sie nicht dauernd hier reinschauen. Darum gibt es hier Regeln fürs Überschreiben von Dateien, die du offenbar laufend brichst. --Sitacuisses (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Kommen wir doch einmal zu diesem Bild. Ich zitiere mal „Das müsste doch auch dir selbst vor Augen führen, dass du nicht weißt was du tust.“ Dies erscheint nur deinen Punkt rechtfertigen zu wollen und ist dieser Satz bewusst beleidigend gemeint? Das erste Bild stammt von einer Zeitung, die ich mir damals aus dem Archiv zuschicken ließ und das Bild mit PhotoED (oder so ähnlich) ins Wikiuniverse sandte. Ich fand ein Verarbeitungsprogramm aus meinem Handy, deren Version besser und wir haben die zweite Version. Inzwischen war die Quelle im Netz, man holt sich die pdf runter, vergrößert und hat die Urversion unter Version 3. Urversion, Handy, entschleiert = Version 4. Fotos auf dem Laptop entdeckt, Urversion sw-t = aktuelle Version. Ich weiß also nicht was ich mache! Ich versuche die Bilder zu verbessern. Versuchen wir das nicht alle? 1970gemini (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Anm. Natürlich ist es auch nicht das erste Mal, dass jemand das was ich mache nicht passt. Aber es hält sich in Grenzen. Wenn jemand ein sw-Bild unbedingt revidieren will, weil er ein vom Alter verunstaltetes Bild oder eine Postkarte, "die ist aber in Sepia erschienen", für ein Lexikon als unbedingt notwedig erachtet... so what. Neu ist allerdings, dass jemand alles zu verunglimpfen versucht, um damit seine Position zu stärken.
Nehmen wir als Beispiel das Infanterie-Regiment „Graf Bülow von Dennewitz“ (6. Westfälisches) Nr. 55 im Jahr 2011. Ich hatte zwei Bilder geautobalanced und dessen Erschaffer daraufhin davon in Kenntnis gesetzt, dass ich seine Bilder mutwillig verunstaltet hatte. Er hat geantwortet und war begeistert wieviel ich aus diesen Bildern noch herausgeholt hatte. Ist eine Ewigkeit her und die Mails sind schon längst automatisch gelöscht worden, aber sowas behält man. 1970gemini (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Autobalance funktioniert manchmal, aber wenn es nicht funktioniert (beispielsweise wenn ein Gemälde nicht nur mit vergilbter Firnis überzogen ist, sondern auch bei Mischlicht aufgenommen wurde) sollte der Bearbeiter das erkennen und nicht verwenden! Ich lese von dir immer noch kein Wort zum Drüberladen. Verstehe ich das richtig, dass du mit Smartphoneapps über die Bilder gehst? --Sitacuisses (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Drüberladen?! Selbstverständlich. Eine schlechtere Version sollte gegen eine bessere ersetzt werden. Zudem ist das hier doch kein Müllplatz. Beispielsweise habe ich einmal das schlechtere Bild durch ein besseres ersetzt. Irgendein, sorry, Depp war der Meinung die Ex-Version unbedingt als zusätzlichen Spam Rekreieren zu müssen....
Du verstehst es nicht richtig, denn das zutreffende Wort heißt nicht gehst sondern gingst. Man findet ein neues PRG und ersetzt das alte da die neueren fortgeschrittener sind...
Photoed funktioniert z. B. nicht mehr. Es ist mE eine normale Vorgehensweise - oder arbeitest Du noch mit Excel 5 und Word 6? 1970gemini (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The more time I spend with this, the more I'm convinced that this is a serious case of Dunning–Kruger effect. They still seem to be convinced that all they do is fine, and in the above post, they call someone who reverted their edit a "Depp" (idiot, dork ...). Give them some time to learn. --Sitacuisses (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Tonje Haukås

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I wish for my copyrighted images to be removed from this site, as well as my name. I find it very disrespectful of you to not accept this. Tonje Haukås (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@Tonje Haukås: I am following established policies and procedures.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:  The two photographs can be removed by speedy deletion per COM:CSD#G11. There's no need to cause an en:Streisand effect. I kindly ask you to remove this thread, and delete the photographs. 12u (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@12u: The photos were licensed CC-BY-SA irrevocably, G11 does not apply.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Both uploads deleted, user indef'ed. --A.Savin 12:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

92711Stefan (talk · contribs)

This user has suddenly started to tag all of his uploads (from 2021) for speedy-deletion with the claimed rationale „Lizenzverletzung ich habe und hate nie die Rechte an diesem Bild“ (transl.: license violation – I don‘t have and never had the rights in this image). After deleting some of these images, I became suspicious, when I noticed that he had even tagged images, which have an OTRS-confirmed permission[24], such as File:Nova Sedes Hugo49.jpg and File:Hugo49-lageplan-2021-stand-1024x537-1.jpg. And indeed, his account on his home-project :de has been indef-blocked the same day.[25] I therefore suspect that the speedy-tagging of his own uploads might not be based in fact, but simply be a kind of scorched-earth-revenge for his expulsion from :de. What to do now? --Túrelio (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The OTRS images are from Nova Sedes. According to .de there is a suspicion that I am a paid writer for Nova Sedes. The OTRS images were put in as advertising for Nova Sedes and are to be deleted according to Wikipedia guidelines. The images are not used in Wikipedia. 92711Stefan (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Johannnes89, please Can you confirm that the two pictures are Nova Sede's advertisements. Both images advertise the Nova Sedes construction project in Bayreuth. No Wikipedia relevance.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nova_Sedes_Hugo49.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hugo49-lageplan-2021-stand-1024x537-1.jpg 92711Stefan (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines do not apply here. Theses images are in scope whether they are used in a Wiki or not. We do not have so much examples of city planning plans. The only question is if you had the permission to upload the files under this license or not. The license is not revocable. The VRTS confirmed the permission so we need their input if they have doubts on the legitimization of these mails. If the sender of the mail made something wrong this should be notified be the same person or organization as the original mail and send to VRTS. --GPSLeo (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Then at least the images without a license should be deleted.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ringsee.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Probstei_Wechteerswinkel.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schwarzer_Nachtschatten_-_Bl%C3%A4tter_(gr%C3%BCn).jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schwarzer_Nachtschatten_-_Reife_Beere.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schwerzer_Nachtschatten_-_Bl%C3%BCte.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schwerzer_Nachtschatten_-_Kantiger_Stiel.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schwarzer_Nachtschatten2.jpg 92711Stefan (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Note that the uploading username was originally „NovaSedes“ [26] before he asked for a rename. That's one of many reasons, why we suspected him of paid editing, even though this could not be proven (the user was blocked for others reasons [27]). I'm pretty sure he has at least some connection to Nova Sedes so I would assume he had permission to upload the Nova Sedes pictures. Johannnes89 (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Haster2

Please, there is nothing more to be done here about Haster2 at this point. --A.Savin 00:16, 22 September 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.

I blocked Haster2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  in dewiki [28][29] after repeatedly (and falsely) accusing others of violating the law [30][31] / being a criminal [32]. After yesterdays block expired, Haster2 got into a heated discussion with user users and again accused others of violating the law [33] which he continued [34] even after I warned to block him again [35].

I proceeded to block him [36][37], now he's continuing the same behaviour at Commons [38][39][40].

Please remove these accusations and tell him to stop / block him if he proceeds with this behaviour. --Johannnes89 (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Johannnes89, im Gegensatz zu dir wissen andere, dass das Unterstellen von Straftaten nicht zulässig ist. Beleidigung ist eine Straftat. Und in anderen Ländern wird das auch wesentlich schärfer gesehen. Haster2 (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I told you multiple times: No one accused you of violating the law. People accused you (correctly) of violating de:WP:Keine persönlichen Angriffe. If people say „Beleidigung“ they usually (and in this context very clearly) don't mean the legal term, they are using it as a synonym for „personal attacks“.
You know the difference, I explained it multiple times, you're still insisting other people broke the law by allegedly accusing you of a crime. --Johannnes89 (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Johannes, you can remove comments from your own user talk page yourself. They can do the same on theirs. This is unhelpful, don't do that again. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose any administrative action at this time. Both users should calm down. If Johannes89 admits that Beleidigung (insult) was over the top then surely Haster2 will no longer feel the need to go on about it and might even admit that they weren't very civil. Of course this doesn't solve the original issue of protecting the wrong version (which we're not going to look into) but it should lead to peace. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Guido den Broeder I did remove the comment from my own user talk page, then he posted the same comment at his own talk page.
    I don't consider my removal of his comment „unhelpful“. Haster2 is harassing other dewiki users, that's why I blocked him at dewiki. I don't think it should be allowed to evade the block by just turning to another Wikimedia project to continue the user conflict and keep harassing people. That's why I ask for a sysop (you don't seem to be one?) to remove the comment again.
    Personally I'm not involved in this conflict, I just dealt with his personal attacks against other users as a sysop at dewiki and am now trying to prevent him from continuing the same attacks at Commons. --Johannnes89 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    Haster2 is not 'harrassing other dewiki users'. He's explaining his point which btw has some validity and if you had only recognized that, there would have been no continued discussion. He was arguing in less than polite words but isn't doing that anymore. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    Guido den Broeder, please avoid downplaying cross-wiki harassment. [41] starts with "Hey fatty"; using talk pages (including one's "own") to taunt others using pings is a common form of misusing the SUL connection between Wikimedia projects. This especially applies to attempts to repeatedly send the same message to a user who has clearly indicated that they have already read, and do not wish to receive, the message ([42], [43], [44], [45]). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm downplaying it because that's what we're supposed to do in this instance. We are here to resolve user issues, not to escalate them. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Guido den Broeder: Sometimes the only resolution is a sanction.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    This is not such a case. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    A big red "oppose" message against taking administrative action, and asking users not to remove harassment again, is neither de-escalating nor resolving the issue. If you don't see the issue, that's fine; let those who do perform the necessary steps. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Johannnes89, im Gegensatz zu dir verfüge ich auch über eine juristische Weiterbildung: Du hast niemanden einen Mörder zu nennen, Mord vorzuwerfen. Auch wenn der Volksmund darunter teilweise etwas anderes als das Strafgesetzbuch versteht. Auch wenn Du meinst, Abtreibung sei Mord, darfst Du einen abtreibenden Arzt keinen Mord unterstellen, ihn einen Mörder nennen. Oder wenn jemand warum auch immer (sogar entschuldigt) tötet. Der Vorwurf des Mordes bleibt eine Straftat. Der Kontext ist da egal. Das Gleiche ist bei der Straftat Beleidigung der Fall. Das ist in Deutschland verboten. Vernoten! Checkst Du es? Da kannst Du dich noch so winden. Es ist klipp und klar. Du willst es offenbar schlichtweg nicht verstehen. Du bist im Unrecht. Da kannst Du deinen Unsinn noch zehnmal wiederholen und mich zu sanktionieren versuchen. Richtiger wird dadurch gar nichts. Und hier hast Du die Adminmacht nicht, mir den Mund zu verbieten und mich dafür wiederholt zu dperren, dass ich mich dagegen wehre, zu Unrecht von Itti öffentlich der Straftat verdächtigt zu werden. Du bist im Unrecht. Und hier noch dazu ohne Macht. Du konntest auf deiner Userpage löschen. Auf meiner hast Du es zu unterlassen. Haster2 (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@Haster2 ich bin recht zuversichtlich, dass mein Jurastudium mir auch genügend Kenntnis vermittelt. Ich wiederhole mich ein letztes Mal:
Niemand hat dir die Straftat einer Beleidigung unterstellt, sondern nur das Wort umgangssprachlich anstelle von „persönlicher Angriff“ verwendet. Kleine Analogie: Wenn ich mich „beleidigt fühle“, sage ich damit auch nicht, dass ich Opfer einer Straftat bin, sondern dass ich mich durch etwas angegriffen/verletzt fühle. Ich weiß nicht, weshalb du diese Erläuterungen nicht akzeptierst, aber so sind die Fakten. Du bist auch lange genug dabei, dass es diese Erläuterungen gar nicht bräuchte.
Wenn du dann faktenwidrig – trotz administrativer Aufforderung dies zu unterlassen – weiterhin behauptest, andere Nutzer hätten eine Straftat begangen, weil sie dir angeblich eine Straftat unterstellen (oder sie sogar direkt als „Straftäter“ bezeichnest), werte ich das als persönlichen Angriff gegen diese Nutzer. Solltest du das erneut in irgendeiner Form wiederholen, werde ich die Sperre in dewiki deutlich verlängern. --Johannnes89 (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Johannnes89, und nicht bestanden? Ich habe Medizin und Medizin-Ethik-Recht abschließend studiert und mache derzeit nebenbei noch 1. Jura auf Stex und 2. Wirtschaftsrecht auf Master. Beides spaßenshalber. In Halle.
Der Vorwurf der Beleidigung ist eine Straftat. Deinen Unsinn von Umgangssprache kannst Du noch und nöcher wiederholen. Ich darf dich auch nicht im umgangssprachlichen Kontext einen Mörder nennen. Hast Du das nicht kapiert? Und nein, es ist nicht faktenwidrig, dass Itti mir Beleidigung unterstellt hat. Faktenwidrig, um bei deinem Terminus zu bleiben, ist es, wie Du zu behaupten, sie hätte es nicht getan. Sogar sie selbst behauptet das nicht einmal (wäre ja auch drollig). Sie behauptet "nur", damit selbst keine Straftat begangen zu haben.
Dein Rechtsstaatsverständnis spottet jeder Beschreibung. Alleine, dass Du hier (noch dazu auf einer amerikanischen Page) die Freiheit der Rede einzuschränken versuchst. Dazu passt übrigens auch deine Ankündigung, deine Adminmacht weiterhin zu missbrauchen. Nur kommst Du hier halt damit nicht weit. Haster2 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Itti hat dir (zurecht!) KPA-Verstöße unterstellt und dabei einen Begriff genutzt, von dem jeder (auch du) weiß, dass sie damit nicht die rechtliche, sondern die umgangssprachliche Bedeutung meinte. Vor keinem Gericht der Welt würdest du mit der Behauptung Recht bekommen, sie hätte dir eine Straftat unterstellt. Und dass du sie sogar als Straftäterin bezeichnet hast (als wäre sie einer Straftat verurteilt worden), macht das ganze noch schlimmer.
Die Freiheit der Rede hat ihre Grenzen, diese hat der Betreiber dieser Website (die WMF) im Universal Code of Conduct und den Nutzungsbedingungen festgehalten. Wenn du diese Grenzen gegenüber dewiki-Nutzern verletzt, werde ich das auch dann sanktionieren, wenn du den Konflikt in andere Projekte trägst. Sperrlänge in dewiki auf einen Monat verlängert, bei jeder weiteren Wiederholung droht eine weitere Eskalation der Sperrlänge. --Johannnes89 (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Johannnes89, Du machst dich mit deinen (gerade wieder angewandten) willkürlichen Sperrverlängerungen in der deutschen Wikipedia für meine hier getätigten Aussagen und weil Du hier bei jederman auf taube Ohre stößt, nur lächerlich. Du merkst offenbar nicht, dass es mich nicht kratzt und dass Du so nur sehr hilflos und inkompetent wirkst. Und wärst Du im Recht, müsstest Du deine Macht nicht derartig missbrauchen. Du bist im Unrecht. Haster2 (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Postscriptum: Dass Du glaubst, Straftäter sei, wer verurteilt sei, und nicht etwa, wer Straftaten beging, zeigt sehr deutlich, dass es mit deinem juristischen know-how nicht wirklich weit her ist. Wie im Übrigen auch die Behauptung mit keinem Gericht der Welt. Wenn Du wüsstest, was Du nicht weißt, wüsstest du, wie ich schon sagte, dass in anderen Ländern da wesentlich schärfer vorgegangen wird, als in Deutschland. Da könnte sich Itti für die öffentlich getätigte Behauptung dumm und damlich zahlen. Und ja, sie hat mir PA vorgeworfen, indem sie mir unterstellte, Beleidigungen formuliert zu haben, aka eine Straftat begangen zu haben. Sage ich ja. Ist halt nicht erlaubt. Haster2 (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
This conversation is far out-of-scope on Wikimedia:Commons. Haster2, please don’t use this project to circumvent your home wiki block. If you consider it necessary, you could dispute the blocking and everything else on the appropriate dewiki conflict-resolution pages, i.e. de:Wikipedia:Sperrprüfung. —MBq (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Hallo MBq (Admin von der deutschen Wikipedia). Nein, mache ich nicht. Also weder und noch.
1. Nutze ich Commons nicht als "Sperrumgehung", sondern nutze es regulär und in zulässiger Weise. Nur und ausschließlich in der Commons. Zur Erinnerung: Johannnes89 hat hier das Fass/die Diskussion aufgemacht.
2. Werde ich nicht die Sperrprüfung bemühen. Ich sehe darin keinen Sinn und Zweck.
Also spare dir bitte diese wenig wertvollen Tipps. Was veranlasst dich überhaupt, von der deutschen Wikipedia aus hier jetzt mitmischen zu wollen? Halte dich doch vielleicht an deine eigenen Empfehlungen. Haster2 (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
You are continuing the same personal attacks on your Commons user talk page which got you blocked in dewiki. Of course that's circumventing the block to continue the dewiki conflict.
I did nothing more then first revert your attacks and now asking Commons sysops for removal. Johannnes89 (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Komisch, dass diese angeblichen "PA" hier keinen jucken (weil sie absolut zulässige Kritik bzw. Meinungsäußerung sind), Du sie aber zum Anlass für missbräuches Verhängen von Sperren nimmst. Aber an dir und dass Du falsch liegst, liegt das natürlich keinesfalls. Du solltest mal anfangen, dich selbst zu hinterfragen. Haster2 (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
This conversation is not out of scope. Johannes89 presented a user's behavior on Commons, for which this is the right board, and that's what's discussed here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment MBq posted a proposal on Haster2's talk page here, which looks reasonable. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    Feeding them with replies, providing yet another opportunity to ping users in response, offering to open another place for continuing to rant ("so scharf wie du willst", "as harsh as you like") and offering something they can't ("we let [the noticeboard discussion] be closed without action") is rather strange. It's surely meant to be reasonable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry for german.
    Es ist mir nicht recht klar, was hier gerade passiert. Guido den Broeder scheint nichts dabei zu finden, wenn Mitarbeitende übel angegangen werden. Das wirft ein zwiespältiges Licht auf Commons. In der dewiki hat Haster2 einen minimalen Konflikt, es geht um eine Kleinigkeit, die Nennung einer Größeneinheit in einer für dewiki und den Artikel ungewöhnlichen Einheit. Das kann man auf der Artikeldiskussionsseite klären. Aber nicht per Edit-War, welcher in dewiki nicht erlaubt ist, nicht per persönlicher Angriffe, welche nicht nur in dewiki, sondern generell in der Wikipedia nicht erlaubt sind. So. Das wars eigentlich. Ich möchte hier nicht beleidigt werden und erwarte durch Admins auf Commons die Umsetzung allgemeiner Regeln der Wikipedia. Dazu gehört auch, einen Benutzer darauf aufmerksam zu machen, sich an die Grundprinzipien zu halten, wie ich es als Admin auf dewiki gegenüber Haster2 auch getan habe. Mehr ist dazu nicht zu sagen, ich möchte nicht mit irgendwelchen Straftaten in einen völlig unsinnigen Bezug gebracht werden. Dazu halte ich es für völlig indiskutabel, wenn Konflikte über unterschiedlichste Projekte verbreitet werden. Hier sind die Admins von Commons gefragt, die allgemein geltenden Nutzungsbedingungen der Wikipedia, inklusive der Regelungen zu den Grundprinzipien umzusetzen. Gruß Itti (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    Several reminders.
    • This is Commons, not Wikipedia.
    • Blocks aren't punishment.
    • Don't mispresent another user's position. I've said that Haster2 should tone down and was uncivil.
    • Don't bait. You know that insult has a legal connotation that Haster2 finds harmful, which is understandable given their background. Use the normal term personal attack instead.
    • If you feel attacked, you can ask the user to rephrase. And sometimes it is wise to simply ignore it.
    Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Ach wenn ich mir Guidos Account so anschaue, ist er hier mehr zum Diskutieren da, als zur enzyklopädischen Mitarbeit. Einfach ignorieren. --ɱ 23:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@Haster2: What exactly do you mean when addressing Johannes89 "Hey Dickerchen"? --A.Savin 01:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
A.Savin, Dickerchen ist die Verniedlichung [46] von "Dicker", "Digger". Um es näher zu verstehen, musst Du das in deutsch lesen. Haster2 (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Itti: "Guido den Broeder scheint nichts dabei zu finden, wenn Mitarbeitende übel angegangen werden." Ich wehre mich gegen DEINE Übergriffigkeit. Und keineswegs "übel". Johannnes89 findet jedenfalls nichts dabei, wenn Mitarbeiter in der deutschen Wikipedia von dir und ganz deutlich unter der Gültenlinie "übel angegangen werden". Der verteidigt das. Selbst dann, wenn Du mit deinen Vorwürfen den Boden des selbst strafrechtlich Zulässigen bereits verlassen hast. Um dich weiterhin zu zitieren: ICH "möchte nicht mit irgendwelchen Straftaten in einen völlig unsinnigen Bezug gebracht werden." Ich nicht von dir! Ich möchte von dir nicht wiederholt einer Straftat, einer Beleidigung bezichtigt werden. Nur weil Du nicht zwischen einem PA und einer Beleidigung sprachlich differenzieren möchtest bzw. so frei bist, als Admin Sprache (in unzulässiger Weise) als Waffe gegen einen User zu gebrauchen. Du hast offenbar noch immer nicht verstanden (was bei Johannnes89 Verhalten aber auch nicht verwundert, der dich geradezu bestärkt, jedenfalls deckt). Haster2 (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (auch aus der deutschen Wikipedia [47] rübergespült): "starts with 'Hey fatty'". Du brauchst in Kenntnis der deutschen Sprache nicht zu denken, mit einer billigen Translatierung Stimmung machen zu können, indem Du solche Nebelkerzen abbrennst. Dicker, Digga, Dickerchen etc. als Anrede im Deutschen bedeutet ganz gewiss nicht "Hey fatty". Und das weißt Du ganz genau, weswegen deine Lüge hier ziemlich frech ist. Wie gesagt: [48].
Letztlich geht die Stimmungsmache des Freundeskreises aus der deutschen Wikipedia (ɱ), die sich gegenseitig privat informieren (ohne dass es untereinander in der Wikipedia/in den Commons kommuniziert wurde und die Leute sonst sich hier rumtreiben) schon so weit: "Ach wenn ich mir Guidos Account so anschaue, ist er hier mehr zum Diskutieren da, als zur enzyklopädischen Mitarbeit. Einfach ignorieren." Soviel zu PA (persönlichen Angriffen). Haster2 (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I went with dict.cc and find it unlikely that, in response to a block, there was genuine belief that "Dickerchen" was interpretable by the recipient anything else than an attack.
There was no private messaging either; it's likely your dewiki block log that brought people here. Haster2 has disruptively imported a dewiki conflict to Commons as if it was a forum for ranting about blocks on other wikis. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Well that is the thing, it is always in the eye of the beholder. What is a normal word or expression to one person, can look like a vicious attack to another. There is generally no way to know in advance. We assume good faith, and that goes both ways. If you feel offended by someone's choice of words, don't lash out, just tell them. Politely. If someone tells you they feel offended by your choice of words, don't contest that, just rephrase. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Auch wenn es hier nicht hingehört, denn es ist ein dewiki Problem, es gibt die Regel: de:Wikipedia:Keine persönlichen Angriffe. Dort den Abschnitt: de:Wikipedia:Keine_persönlichen_Angriffe#Beispiele und auf diesen Abschnitt der Beispiele habe ich Bezug genommen. Nichts anderes und es ist schon dreist, etwas völlig anderes zu konstruieren und mir in den Mund legen zu wollen. Definitiv habe ich dir keine Straftat unterstellt, wie käme ich dazu und definitiv lasse ich mich von dir nicht als "Straftäterin" verunglimpfen. Das ist ein persönlicher Angriff, den du da fährst, über Projektgrenzen hinweg und das ist nicht akzeptabel für mich. Das du keinerlei Respekt anderen gegenüber aufbringst zeigt alleine schon deine Anrede gegenüber Johannes89 als "Hey Dickerchen". Das ist übergriffig und keinesffalls eine übliche oder freundliche Anrede im deutschen. Gruß Itti (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree, weil ich ja genau weiß, dass ihr derartig aggiert, hatte ich mich sogar noch für die Verniedlichungsform der Anrede entschieden, um gar keine Fragen aufkommen zu lassen und jede eventuell verstandene Schärfe zu nehmen. Und selbst daraus versucht ihr dennoch etwas zu konstruieren. Ich kenne weder He3nry, noch Johannnes89, als dass ich weiß, ob die pyknisch, asthenisch oder athletisch sind. Wie absurd es ist, anzunehmen, man hätte wen, der mit einer Wahrscheinlichkeit gar nicht dick ist, als fett bezeichnet. Haster2 (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Itti, ich verweise auf das, was ich gerade ~ ToBeFree schrieb. Es ist so absurd. Vielleicht schreibst Du ja den Artikel zu Dicker (Anrede) neu/um, wenn Du doch felsenfest anderes behauptest, als dort steht und auch das besser zu wissen behauptest. Von daher ist dein Vorwurf des Konstruierens an mich schon sehr drollig. Was für mich von dir nicht akzeptabel ist, habe ich dir klar gesagt. Du bist es, die sich falsch verhält/verhielt. Du bist wirklich der Meinung, irgendwie eine Deutungshoheit über die deutsche Sprache zu haben bzw. dass die dir zusteht. Sowohl was den Begriff einer Beleidigung, als auch den von Anreden betrifft. StGB? Scheiß drauf! Projektinterne Erklärpage? Stimmt und gilt nicht, wenn Itti das so will. Das ist so anmaßend von dir. Wie an anderer Stelle schon gesagt: Du bist als Administratorin absolut ungeeignet. Haster2 (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Itti, second time, please respect that de.Wikipedia policies are irrelevant on Commons. We have our own rules and ways of doing things. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes they aren't as this is a different project with a different purpose. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Gibt es einen Grund für deine erneuten Belehrungen? Habe ich behauptet, die Regeln von dewiki würden hier gelten? Ich habe erläutert, warum ich auf dewiki einen Begriff genutzt habe, an dem sich der Benutzer Haster2 schlimm gestört hat. Dies habe ich weder in böser Absicht, noch um ihn zu verunglimpfen, sondern schlicht, weil es umgangssprachlich dort so üblich ist, gemacht. Damit wollte ich auch nicht, wie von ihm behauptet, sagen, er hätte eine Straftat begangen. Deine Einmischungen sind unangebracht, sie sind nicht zutreffend, bringen nur zusätzliche Verwirrung. Interessant ist jedoch ein Blick in dein globales Konto, gesperrt auf enwiki, meta, nlwiki. Hinzuzufügen ist nur noch, der Artikel "Dicker (Anrede)" gibt nicht her, dass als Anrede auch "Dickerchen" genutzt würde. Wird es auch nicht. Soviel zum Thema Kommunikationsprobleme. Gruß Itti (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for giving all of us a clear insight into how you operate. The combative attitude displayed by admins is why I stopped contributing to Wikipedia 13 years ago. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Just a clarification - whatever Dicker or Digga is interpreted as, Dickerchen clearly translates to "Fatty" and nothing else. --Kritzolina (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Google translate says chubby, but it also has a slang meaning in some parts of Germany, as explained by Haster2, which a search will produce. That said, if someone thinks fatty is an insult, then that someone is prejudiced against a totally normal body shape. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Maybe you shouldn't try to explain German language to German natives. Stepro (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: "If someone thinks fatty is an insult, then that someone is prejudiced against a totally normal body shape" -> this may be correct in general, but obviously a poor causality in *this* case; because, what else could have been a reason for Haster2 to call an other user fatty other than to insult him (unless this user is indeed known for being obese, which we hopefully don't presume and which is most likely non-public anyway)? By the way, I tend *not* to believe that "Dickerchen" is really the same as "Digger" in German. Regards --A.Savin 18:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
We don't pretend to know someone's intention. Instead, we assume good faith. In general the ending -chen changes the connotation of a word from neutral to friendly. It is the same in Dutch. People can call me dikke and I will think nothing of it. If they call me dikkerdje, I'll smile. I've still been a finalist in all the pageants that I entered. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

So, für mich ist es das hier jetzt. Ich habe alles gesagt, was ich zu sagen hatte und beende meine Beteiligung an dieser Unterhaltung. Man wiederholt sich ja nur noch. Viel Freude euch weiterhin. Haster2 (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Watching this discussion is quite painful.

  • A user imports a dewiki conflict to Commons by messaging administrators who prevented them from editing on dewiki on their Commons talk pages.
  • The messages are removed; the user continues by pinging them on their own talk page. That's the point where a project should take administrative steps against continuation of the behavior.
  • The problem is reported to a central noticeboard; the first uninvolved user to respond is someone community banned on enwiki and blocked for "Intimidating behaviour/harassment" on metawiki. They instruct the reporter not to remove harassment again, voice opposition to anyone taking administrative action in advance, and provide unhelpful tips such as to "simply ignore" the behavior, putting the blame on the victims for "baiting".
  • When finally someone with the technical ability to stop the disruption appears, they focus on one word of the undesired messages and ask for its meaning.
  • The discussion continues with the community-banned/blocked editor attempting to educate others about policies.

I'd like to see the following two results:

  • Haster2 being required to stop importing conflicts from other projects, by an administrator closing this discussion, removing the cross-wiki harassment from Haster2's talk page and either blocking or warning them to prevent this from happening again
  • Guido den Broeder being asked to stop their unhelpful participation in user conduct discussions, particularly their downplaying of issues they are blocked for and are thus not able to evaluate neutrally.

Commons isn't a safe haven for continuing disputes from other projects; it's not a forum for rants about other projects' administration nor for sending annoying messages to users who are mainly active in a project they are blocked from. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

+1.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Neither is it a personal forum for you to import perceived problems from other wiki's. Jeff, your global lock attempt - double jeopardy, by the way - failed hopelessly yet you keep bringing up the same ancient history. That is not acceptable. Other administrators here on Commons are doing a great job. You are the odd one out by being trigger-happy. Recently you even accused a user of fraud for no reason whatsoever. FYI, I've been unblocked on nl:Wikimedia without prejudice, and I've filed requests to the Ombuds commission about your ridiculous allegations of sockpuppetry. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: Whom did I accuse, in what edit? Double jeopardy does not apply here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Here. Double jeopardy because as I learned recently ToniBallioni had already tried and failed to globally lock me with the same false allegation of sockpuppetry. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: Where is the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license on fcsb.ro as alleged in this edit?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: Exactly relevant, that's the exact reason I accused DavidEDZ of "Fraudulent license fabrication at File:Fcsb-logo.svg", rather than "for no reason whatsoever". There is no Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license on fcsb.ro, DavidEDZ appears to have just made it up. Take your statement "Recently you even accused a user of fraud for no reason whatsoever" back. Also, any confirmed user can report anyone to m:srg, as long as they bring evidence, which I did. Of course, you can't because you're indefblocked on Meta. I was unaware of the previous report about you at m:srg. At the time of my report about you there, you were indefblocked on 4 wikis and banned on enwiki; now you are indefblocked on only 3 wikis, but still banned on enwiki. These are active, ongoing blocks (not old ones). Your block on enwiki is for sockpuppetry (according to the block log). My report garnered two supports, so evidently there was something to it. If you keep going like this, I will open or participate in a global ban RfC, as AntiCompositeNumber suggested.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
You are very lucky that the user you accused of fraud didn't minimally request a desysop, which I would have wholeheartedly supported. Now, I want you to leave me alone. Don't talk to me or about me until you're ready to apologize. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
+1 to ToBeFree. Stepro (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 week 3 months block, see also his latest comment, and then the multiple block evasion as IP. --A.Savin 20:36, 21 September 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:AXLjdgø04

AXLjdgø04 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  seems to be a fairly new account editing primarily soccer team articles on Spanish Wikipedia. They've also been uploading lots of team logos/badges to Commons to use apparently in those articles. All of their uploads are claimed as "own work" and licensed as CC-by-sa-4.0 (or some similar CC license), claims that are both quite questionable. All of their uploads have been deleted as copyvios accept for the two files uploaded a few hours ago. It's quite possible that AXLjdgø04 is just misunderstanding some things about Commons; so, I left an {{End of copyvios}} template on their user talk page and also another message. Their latest uploads were made after leaving those warnings. Since AXLjdgø04 is only active on Spanish Wikipedia, they might not understand English very well. Even though the "End of Copyvios" template has a Spanish version, AXLjdgø04 might not've noticed it and also might not've understood what I posted below it. Perhaps a Spanish speaking administrator could try and explain things to AXLjdgø04 one last time. If the questionable uploads continue after that, then a block may be needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I deleted all remaining uploads. Taivo (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User:CuboidalBrake06

CuboidalBrake06 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  – Persistent copyright issues for nearly a year. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. Let's start from week-length block. Taivo (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Different image from source is being used

According the File:อภิรัชต์ คงสมพงษ์.jpg, the source (https://hilight.kapook.com/img_cms2/user/1_1313.jpg) uses different image so this image is not reliable and should be changed or removed. White Bangkaew (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

This should have been posted to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. I have nominated the file for deletion, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:อภิรัชต์ คงสมพงษ์.jpg. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Felipelanini

Persistent copyright violations even after first warning. The user has now started to flickwashing pictures to justify their uploads here. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 22:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. All uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Дагестан 1999

Дагестан 1999 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) : Another copyvio upload after multiple deletions, warnings and blocks. Xunks (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. One year block (third block). I deleted speedily one copyvio. Taivo (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Tamara744 and GuyPiggys1

Users GuyPiggys1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and Tamara744 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  seem to be the same person, uploading out-of-scope images and logos. I warned them but an administrator should evaluated if they should be blocked and their uploads deleted. Pierre cb (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked the sock and warned the main account. All OoS images deleted. Yann (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Unconstructive editing and hounding by User:Yann

I was basely reported to this board by User:Yann about a month ago. Then like 2 weeks after that he basely blocked me for a week for violating a warning he supposedly gave me not to communicate with certain users that he had never actually given me. In the meantime I've been doing maintenance on creator templates. Part of which involved at the recommendation of User:Jarekt transferring single file templates which are unlikely to get more files over to Wikidata panels since they cause problems with the maintenance categories and aren't necessary anyway. Yann reverted my edits though and unilaterally changed the guideline for creator templates to say that is fine to use them single file templates which are unlikely to get more files. Which I reverted and then I left him a message on his talk page saying I was fine with the wording of the guideline being changed to include single file templates as long as it reflected that they aren't necessary, but I recommend there be a discussion about it on the templates talk page first.

He subsequently ignored the message, never started a discussion about it anywhere, and didn't edit the templates guideline again. So I went about my business thanking it wasn't an issue he really cared about. Then earlier when I nominated a creator template for deletion after I transferred the one file it was being used on into a Wikidata link like User:Jarekt said to do User:Yann left me a message on my talk page accusing me of vandalism and threatening to block me for supposedly creating speedy deletion requests for templates that are in use. There's two problems with that though, 1. The template was only in use because he reverted my edited where I converted the file it was being used on originally to a Wikidata entry. So in no was the template in use when nominated it for deletion. 2. I had already told him I was following what User:Jarekt had recommended.

An administrator threatening someone with a block over something that another administrator said was fine is just ridiculous and extremely unconstructive. Especially since User:Yann knew full well that I had discussed it with User:Jarekt before he left the threatening message on my talk page. It also seriously comes off like COM:HOUNDING since he has basely tried to get me blocked and blocked me before. More so since he was unwilling to go through the normal resolution processes first, like talking to me about it when I left him the message, starting a discussion on the templates talk page, or even discussing it with User:Jarekt. He clearly has issues with not following the normal routes users should take to resolve things and it also seem like he's COM:HOUNDING me in the process since he keeps coming at me with completely baseless nonsense. I'd appreciate if both that and the creator template thing were worked out. I don't really feel like being hounded or blocked just for doing something an administrator recommended. Adamant1 (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Editwarring by Adamant1

Adamant1 seems to claim ownership of Commons:Creator and reverts every attempt to improve the text. As I understand it they are in favor of deprecating the template, or at least minimize its use, but they haven't actually proposed this. In the meantime, it's in use, and it must be possible for others to change the wording. We're now back at somewhat broken English. Their latest revert actually removed the very maintenance argument that Adamant has repeatedly made on user talk pages and the protection noticeboard. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks (2nd block). See also above, and Adamant1's talk page, where they were warned about multiple issues. Yann (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Leonaardog

Leonaardog (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) is a proven sock and was recently indef. blocked in the Pt.WP. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 02:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him indefinitely. Master account is already blocked. Taivo (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Wikipedent

This user has created a variant of my username and is beginning to use it to revert my edits. -- WikiPedant (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. Indefinitely blocked. Taivo (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Saimum11

Is there an active Commons admin or user who understands Bengali? I've just tagged pretty much all of the files uploaded by Saimum11 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) as copyvios since I wasn't able to find them released under the licenses claimed on the websites given as their sources. Prior files uploaded by the same user also seem to have been deleted for similar reasons. This could be just a misunderstanding of COM:L in which the uploader mistakenly thinks content uploaded to official websites of Bangladeshi organizations and companies make them OK to upload to Commons. So, if someone who understands Bengali can try to explain this to Saimum11, perhaps they will be able to avoid a block. Someone seems to have posted on their user talk in Bengali before but that seems to have been a request for a logo to be uploaded and not about uploading copyright violations. I could add an {{End of copyvios}} template, but not sure that would be understood. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Moheen: , could you look into this? --Kritzolina (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

GreppJ

Please block GreppJ (talk · contribs). Obvious DUCK of blocked sockpuppeeter NistelrooySMG (talk · contribs). Bedivere (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

GreppJ has been confirmed as a sock of NistelrooySMG. Also, please block and nuke all contributions of Ghodfno76 (talk · contribs), another confirmed sockpuppet, where they've uploaded copyvios. I've reviewed GreppJ's uploads and they all seem fine to me, but not Ghodfno76's. --Bedivere (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Both blocked. Yann (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Bedivere (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Jituyadav15121

@Jituyadav15121 has uploaded multiple photos; some are speediable as copyright violations, others are no permission, but it's still a concerning amount of copyright violations. I dream of horses (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for spamming, edits nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

94.245.129.116

@94.245.129.116: - apparently random nominations for deletion (all recent uploads), no rationale given. Retired electrician (talk)

✓ Done Blocked by Elcobbola. Yann (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Aghlabids Dynasty 800 - 909 (AD).svg

M.Bitton (talk · contribs) has been stonewalling edits to an image that was made by misinterpreting the source it allegedly comes from and taking it out of context as well. The map on page 24 in the Atlas of Islamic History doesn't show Sardinia and Southern Italy with the same colours as Sicily and Northern Africa, it paints them with the ones associated to "Non-Muslim / Muslim contested/shared over time territories" (as per the legend in page 12) between "Western Christian states", the Byzantine Empire and the Aghlabids when it comes to Sardinia and just between Western Christian states and the Aghlabids for Southern Italy. Also, the context of that image is a page where the same authors of the image wrote:

"The Aghlabids ruled more or less independently until the Fatimid conquest in 909, initiating an Arab occupation of Sicily that was to last more than 250 years and raiding Corsica, Sardinia and southern Italy."

As you can see, Sardinia and Southern Italy were just "raided", not "occupied". The map here on Commons gives anyone seeing it false informations, and many users before me tried to change it for that reason, but their edits were reversed because "the cited source says otherwise", while it actually doesn't. I've tried to fix the issue but it was reverted again, using a lack of consensus on en.wiki as a reason. Leaving aside the fact that that discussion (that started after some bad reverts made by three users that are pushing a POV and also claimed consensus after changing a part of the text that actually had consensus before the change) is related not only to another project but to another part of the article too (not the image itself but the image's description inside the infobox, where I tried to add a "possible" to the sentence "Maximal extent of Aghlabid authority" to keep it neutral) while nobody ever responded to me after I proposed an edit to the image (and stopped responding at all, reason why I'm considering to ask for a dispute resolution there too), my edit here was actually a way to solve it in a way that doesn't change that part (making it superfluous) while also being true to the source. Please someone intervene, leaving the map like that makes it original research and POV pushing. L2212 (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Utter nonsense! First of all, Commons is not the place to discuss content related issues. Second, having tried and failed to edit against the established consensus on the English Wikipedia, the OP decided to introduce their POV through the back door (on Commons). As for en.wp, they have been rightly ignored by us because they kept citing out of context policies and guidelines as well as casting aspersions. They are obviously free to take their concerns and their chances to the admin board of their choosing over there. M.Bitton (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I've only mentioned the content and the discussion because you used them as a reason for the revert. The issue is not creating or editing an original map on Commons, considering the fact that images here do not necessarily need to comply with the No original research or the NPOV requirements, the problem is writing false informations about the source used to make it and reverting any edit because of it. It's either an original creation, and in that case there was no reason to do a substantial change like you did in 2021 justifying it with "Updated to reflect the sourced map it appears to be based on" (you should have created a new file according to Commons:Overwriting existing files) or, if it's supposed to reflect the source, you should not stonewall any change that actually reflects it. Because what I did is exactly what is in the source, whether you agree with my opinion on the issue or not. I did not add anything to it. L2212 (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

1.54.194.211

@1.54.194.211 is removing copyvio tags from images they've uploaded while logged in. DHN (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. The IP stopped after your warning and all files in question are deleted, so at moment nothing should be done. Taivo (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo They're at it again, now editing this page to remove my messages about them. DHN (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikinger again

Dahitmanda e-mailed him from a wp.pl account. It's the Greek alpahbet whacko again:

As usual it might be a case of double jeopardy with GRP. Cp. this recent thread. @Antandrus and Ferien: ping! Additionally, I keep getting warnings about repeated unsuccessful attempts of logging into my account from disparate WMF projects. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably GRP. I know some ways to tell them apart (if it matters - they're both Foundation-banned) but I won't say more in a public place. - Once GRP tried to break into my account 200 times in one day. Honestly, I just laugh. I wish he'd get some help. Antandrus (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
✓ Locked globally by ACN. --Achim55 (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin and Antandrus: They hit me, too. Private ways to tell them apart appreciated. @Achim55 and @AntiCompositeNumber: Thanks for your swift action!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Minhquoc12390

Minhquoc12390 (talk · contribs) has been constantly re-uploading copyvio images that have been deleted despite repeated warnings. Please block them and delete the copyvio images. DHN (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted and user warned. Ruthven (msg) 14:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@Ruthven User is back at it with the account Anhvuhp90 (talk · contribs). DHN (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Main account blocked for a week, sock blocked indef. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@Yann@Ruthven They're now using Sundaymorning22 (talk · contribs). Please salt File:Thamthuyhang1966.jpg as well. DHN (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked both latest sock and master account indefinitely. But I will not protect the filename. Instead, I added it into my watchlist to catch next sockpuppets. Taivo (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done by Taivo -- Ruthven (msg) 08:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Ruthven@Taivo@Yann Now under Xuân701 (talk · contribs). DHN (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done @DHN File deleted, semi-protected from creation, and new sock blocked. Ruthven (msg) 12:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

User:지구에서한아뿐

지구에서한아뿐 (talk · contribs)

This user has been uploading copyrights image of en:Kim So-hyun blatantly and also falsely claimed as licensed under CC, I have requested CSD for all of them. Please help to warn them officially. Thanks! — Paper9oll 04:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. Next time please warn the user yourself, adding {{subst:end of copyvios}} ~~~~ in bottom of user talkpage. Taivo (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Ahmed.papon.35

User:Ahmed.papon.35 reuploading self-promotion and vandalizing my gallery page -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Warned, file deleted. Yann (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Prinses Elisabeth en Philip Mountbatten, Bestanddeelnr 902-2628.jpg

There is a slow-paced edit-war going on between me and User:HaT59 concerning above mentioned file. I believe the best policy is to crop it to remove the useless borders, so it is better usable for articles. HaT59 reverts it back, without discussion. I tried to reason with him, but so far without result. Can anybody step in to resolve the issue? Jeff5102 (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Consistency plays here, see Category:Princess_Elizabeth,_Duchess_of_Edinburgh_in_1947. You can always upload the cropped version as a separate file if you want it, with the indication (cropped) in the name. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe that works that way. The two versions were created by suspected sockpuppet User:Frontman830, because he opposed my crops in original photographs too. I discussed these matters with the original uploader User:Mr.Nostalgic here in April 2021, and he agrees with my stance of cutting away useless borders. I would not have mind if HaT59 had followed Frontman390's example and made two files out of one (and adjusted the links from articles to the file accordingly), but blindly reverting is, in my opinion, not the way. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Some users may want to use the image as is. If you wish to remove the borders, please insert a new version of the image rather than modifying the original image. HaT59 (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
And the advantages of keeping the borders, a visible thumbtack and the background behind a photograph are....? I don't want to be rude, but I do not see any advantage of keeping them. Some others might argue they want to use photographs this way, but that doesn't say there are any advantages in doing so.
Now, in this particular example, the photograph is used in French Wikipedia-articles onː
• Alice de Battenberg
• Marguerite de Grèce
• Théodora de Grèce (1906-1969)
• Sophie de Grèce (1914-2001)
• Mariage de la princesse Élisabeth et de Philip Mountbatten
So tell meː how do these particular articles benefit from the image as it is now?Jeff5102 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
All the more reason to leave both versions. When I put this image on an article and see some time later that it has changed, just because Jeff5102 doesn't like it, it bothers me. You can't decide alone for everyone. Let the article writers choose the one they want.
For example: File:Prinses Elizabeth op buitenverblijf, samen met prins Philip, Bestanddeelnr 902-4750.jpg and File:Prinses Elizabeth op buitenverblijf, samen met prins Philip, Bestanddeelnr 902-4750 (cropped).jpg. HaT59 (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Still, you have not given any benefit for, as Andy writes below, a border, which is merely a technical artifact that has zero value to it. Could you please elaborate on that?Jeff5102 (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Who do you think you are? If a user wants to use one over the other, they should be able to do so without having to justify it! Your systematic blocking is all the more incomprehensible as you would need just two more clicks instead of wasting your time (and mine) debating here. HaT59 (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
HaT59, I ascertain you cannot bring up any argument for using a picture of a picture with pointless, ugly borders. I think I will follow the advice of Andy Dingley and crop the picture again. As I see it, you have three optionsː
1) accept a correct, cleaner version above the original one (as adviced by Andy);
2) crop the picture seperately yourself (as suggested by Guido), or
3) request help and advice from an administrator to solve this discussion (which is what I am already doing now).
And for the recordːthis is not "just because Jeff5102 doesn't like it;" like I said I discussed this with the original uploader, and he agreed with me (and as Andy does too).
Alsoː the phrase "if a user wants to use one over the other, they should be able to do so without having to justify it" would have been a reasonable argument, if the one saying it was not reverting the corrections in the original file without any discussion. Last month I already tried to discuss this issue on Hat59's talk-page but the only result was another revert without discussion a few hours later. So at that moment, the "Let the article writers choose the one they want"-argument apparently was not in play back then.
Anyway, that is all I have to say about the issue now. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Please be reasonable and stop taking this page as an indictment and taking yourself as a prosecutor. If you want to remove the borders from the image, do so by importing a new file, not by modifying the original file. It only takes two clicks, as I said before. I must admit that I don't understand why you are blocking. HaT59 (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, if it is "only two clicks" then I don't understand why you crop the picture seperately yourself. I am just correcting a lot of ANEFO-files with ugly borders by cropping them, but problems only arise when Queen Elizabeth II is pictured on them. That saidː showing you the options is not a case of "unreasonable blocking" or "taking myself as a prosecutor," that is trying to come to a solution.̴̴Jeff5102 (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@HaT59: Ok, I uploaded File:Prinses Elisabeth en Philip Mountbatten, Bestanddeelnr 902-2628 (cropped).jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I see another Jeff solved the problems. Meanwhile, Guido pointed me to a useful page. To all participants of this discussion I would sayː thank you all, and my compliments, for your efforts to make Commons work as a projectǃ Jeff5102 (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Joshstovall

Joshstovall (talk · contribs) has uploaded multiple copyright violations. I dream of horses (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted or tagged. Yann (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Anonimo247a

Anonimo247a (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has been repeatedly uploading files with copyvio, despite the warnings on his talk page and a two-week blocking period. --Ovruni (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Nyusicacica

@Nyusicacica has uploaded multiple copyright violations. I dream of horses (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. The user was not warned previously. Let's consider this thread as official warning. Taivo (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Swehlam

Has uploaded multiple copyright violating files. I dream of horses (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user. Next time block. Taivo (talk) 06:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Paraponius

Threat with a complaint "to the authorities" + insults: [49]. -- Lesless (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lesless: I have notified the user as per the notice at the top of this page. Please don't forget to do this next time. SHB2000 (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Thx. The user has been indefinite blocked today in Russian Wikipedia for insults: [50]. Lesless (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. Indefinite block for legal threats. Let him request unblock, if he wants. Taivo (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Random vulgarity and personal attacks by user Davey2010

I could not understand why this user has targeted me. I have a DR for a file that was being manipulated by another user and discovered it was copyrighted in 2018 for Getty Images. I did a DR and pointed out that many of my files are used without proper authorization. Seems that was the trigger that set off this user, whom I have asked to back away twice now only to be meet with a string of vulgarity that you can see in his talk page revision history "you fucking idiot, Anyway fuck off, preferably fuck off away" and it goes on, but this type of conduct really should not be tolerated here. Can I request an interaction ban with this user please? --Don (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I posted notice on his talk page and he promptly removed it? --Don (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
LOL coming from the guy that outed a news reporter at a DR which had to be revdelled![51]. I don't need to "chill out" as you put it in fact I was absolutely hunkydory till you showed up on my talkpage!. Do the world a favour Dom and click here. –Davey2010Talk 23:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I showed up, on his talk page after with no reasoning he simply removed my e mail address from MY talk page. I tried to find out why and this user became increasingly agitated as his comment here shows. Once again can I please request an interaction ban from this user please. --Don (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
It is also notable that this user felt compelled to drop yet another F Bomb in the DR it refers to above. Civility is out the door with this user I am afraid. --Don (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Which part of this had anything to do with the email issue? I apologised for my mistakes with that and proceeded to remove your reply saying "have a nice day"[52] so how does the email issue relate to this?,
You seem to imply I've been raging with anger since the email thing which isn't the case, I've been cool as a cucumber until you showed up.
LOL since when is "clusterfuck" incivil ?, Nothing in my comment at the DR was incivil - If you made more sense then there wouldn't of been any confusion mate. I expect at this point you're going to make legal threats against me like you do with everything here. –Davey2010Talk 23:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Anyway I can't be arsed with you or this circus anymore, You carry on throwing hissyfits over silly things, you carry on OUTING people here, and I'll go back to improving our images for our readers. You do you Don. Have a fantastic day!. –Davey2010Talk 23:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The clusterfuck-comment at that DR was a light hearted comment poking fun at my confusion .... There was nothing offensive or incivil about it. –Davey2010Talk 00:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
"you fucking idiot, Anyway fuck off, preferably fuck off away" is anything but civil. Re requesting interaction ban please. This user is clearly according to his history on his talk page, an angry person. --Don (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Before Don brings it up I feel I should probably mention I was also blocked on EN in August for 72 hours for my language, Seems dumb bringing it up but someone's gonna bring it up sooner or later so may as well be me. I'm big enough and ugly enough to know words have consequences at the end of the day.
If IBANS are a thing I would happily accept one or failing that just never interact with them again. –Davey2010Talk 00:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I really don't care to deal with this user, he accepted an IBAN so let's give it to him. His assertions upon me are ridiculous to say the least. Using this type of vulgar and profane language is unacceptable for anyone. It (the user) has been here long enough to know that you cannot use that type of profanity. He was blocked in EN for the same thing, so he comes here and feels it is ok to do it to me? Profanity is uncivilized and unproductive. --Don (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Worthy of note are the 3 blocks issued to this user on EN for the same type of conduct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davey2010#Block

Quoting here user:El C "Look, Davey, you've lost your shit like a million times and been warned about that also like a million times. And while I recognize that you've been doing it less lately, which is good, and that, crucially, your attacks are rarely if ever truly egregious or mean-spirited — even still, telling us that this is just the way you are, is not good enough. Telling us to expect more attacks in the future, even if at a low frequency, that is likewise not good enough. I mean, I appreciate the honesty, but the concern is twofold: 1. Driving users away, maybe not from the project itself, but from various pages.' Users may not want to challenge or correct you, even when it's due, simply for not wishing to deal with you potentially going off on them. 2. Related to that is the seeming random nature of the outbursts. It's one thing for these to happen as a consequence of getting worn down by a longstanding, intractable dispute. But it's wholly another for it to seemingly come out of nowhere, over changes that seem relatively unimportant (i.e. the capricious and unpredictable nature of the attacks makes them, or their specter, worse). Briefly on the specific dispute: neither one of you have consensus, which is now something to be determined. That you didn't notice the change for nearly 2 years, that's on you. Your opponent enjoyed WP:SILENTCONSENSUS throughout much of that time, until you objected, at which point it evaporated. In that sense, neither one of you has an edge over the other wrt consensus. Though I do note that your opponent was edit warring over an image that they, themselves, had uploaded — which can be a red flag, but I don't view as an immediate problem in this instance.

Anyway, obviously I didn't indef you, but I do feel that there needs to be some consequence. Which includes having a record of the misconduct in the block log. I suppose you could argue that's it's a punitive block, but from my perspective, warning you yet again would be giving you tacit license to attack folks with impunity (and again, somewhat randomly/unpredictably). Which is just too WP:UNBLOCKABLE for me. The negative atmosphere it cultivates, by potentially pushing users away from challenging you in the course of normal collaboration — that kind of chilling effect is a problem. It's a problem when folks know there'll be no consequences for you when you attack them, save perhaps yet another warning. So, I'm sorry (truly), but no more warnings. Now it's this. El_C 02:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)"

18:32, 6 May 2020 Ivanvector talk contribs block blocked Davey2010 talk contribs with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy) (unblock change block) 10:46, 21 July 2018 Nick talk contribs block blocked Davey2010 talk contribs with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy) (unblock change block)

40 days later ":"you fucking idiot, Anyway fuck off, preferably fuck off away" is anything but civil. --Don (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@WPPilot For reference, here is the block log. Don, it is literally impossible to figure out which edits you are referring to. No one is going to scour through hundreds of Davey's edits to find the problematic ones, especially when you post chunks of his talk page into the middle of this discussion. Please give a link to the specific comments and post their diffs if you want any help here. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
User talk:Davey2010: Difference between revisions - Wikimedia Commons Don (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
User talk:WPPilot: Difference between revisions - Wikimedia Commons Don (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:N72EX by Don Ramey Logan.jpg: Difference between revisions - Wikimedia Commons Don (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I support an interaction ban between these two users, at minimum.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support interaction ban, though not for long (maybe 14 days at max.?). This is only going in circles – all that's needed is for both users involved in this dispute to take a step back. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Ignoring IBANs for the moment, how is this acceptable? Either we have a civility policy or we don't. If we do, then what is an appropriate response to this?
I don't want edit summaries, or comments anywhere, of this level. So how do we prevent that? If not blockable in itself, this should at least be time for a clear warning to Davey that such language is blockable, and that's likely to happen with repeats.
Or do we become en:WP, where comments like this are as likely to get you an "editor of the week" award. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Schleifenbauer

Schleifenbauer (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  seems to be uploading promotional material from its own company schleifenbauer.eu

Pierre cb (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Please notify the user. The remaining image only shows the company name in small print, do you still consider it promotional?
Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I did notify the user. I am just reporting here for administrator evaluation. Pierre cb (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Sepidnoor

Tends to remove deletion and speedy deletion tags from their upload ([53], [54]) despite prior warning. Also, he removed the recent deletion notices from his talk [55], [56]. --Mhhossein talk 08:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. Yann warned the user and nominated most uploads for deletion. I nominated one file for deletion as well. After warning the user has not edited. In my opinion that's enough. Taivo (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Ethanhoudefag has a blatantly unacceptable username and needs to be blocked

None of the user’s contributions are high quality or educational either, consisting of crude exhibitionist porn, so this is also a clear w:wp:nothere user. I reported the user to vandalism but all the admin did was warn them despite the obvious lack of good faith or competence. Dronebogus (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked and nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Deepmind28081996

Deepmind28081996 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Persistently uploading a lot of photos which are clearly Copyright violations, getting warnings after warnings. Lemonaka (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user. Next time block. Taivo (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo nuke requested for Deepmind28081996 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . Rough check done, all of his uploads contain vague permission and copyright violations. Lemonaka (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@Lemonaka Thanks, an earlier final warning would have expedited the process. There are now 25 instances of "Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing" there.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Yep, exhausted for checking their uploads. Lemonaka (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

User:David C. S. 3

David C. S. (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  The same day that their one month long block expired for edit warring in File:Venezuela president recognition map.svg, David insisted in the changes which got them blocked in the first place by uploading a duplicate version of the file in question (fittingly titled "uncensored", File:Venezuela president recognition map (uncensored).svg); I have tagged the image accordingly.

Pinging @Jeff G.: and @Taivo: , who were the users and administrator that responded to the last related thread (COM:ANU#David C. S. 2). NoonIcarus (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: Uploading with a separate filename is actually encouraged by COM:OW. A different adjective in parentheses might be better in the title, and justifications for the differences between files with references could help users at our sister projects decide for themselves which map to use.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I might be unfamiliar with the guideline, but wouldn't this be a case of COM:UPLOADWAR? --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@NoonIcarus: No, that's what happened in the previous file. This file, with references, would be a solution.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I see. Thank you for your insight, Jeff. I still have to voice that I see that change troublesome: it currently has no references and there hasn't been any engagement or explanation in related talk pages, one of the issues presented last time. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@NoonIcarus: You're welcome. You may address those topics on the talk pages of any articles which use File:Venezuela president recognition map (uncensored).svg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

SKoskinenn

SKoskinenn (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is uploading selfies and copyrighted material such as screen capture of TV shows. As been warned many times. Pierre cb (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Uploads deleted, one week block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Christian Lagahit

Despite how the flags that were uploaded are real, Han is still socking. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Fotw have real flags Christian Lagahit (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked Christian indefinitely and deleted all his uploads due to failed license review. Fotw is prohibited source, flags there are copyrighted. Taivo (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

inappropriate username

IMO, User:Lula = Mensalão, Petrolão e Propina is an inappropriate username. --Túrelio (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Has been blocked on dewiki because of the name. The = is problematic because it breaks templates. XenonX3 (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@XenonX3: And I thought my space and dot were bad.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I think every symbol etc. is fine, that doesn't interfere with templates. A pipe | would be a problem, too. XenonX3 (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Account finally blocked due to inappropriate username. --Túrelio (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Buntarion

Buntarion (talk · contribs) multiple recent copyvios after the 'last warning' (in 2020!). Xunks (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Bachthoveen

Bachthoveen (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  copyright violated a lot recently. Lemonaka (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

This user's uploads focus entirely on the artist related to this category: Category:Bienvenido Bones. There are multiple other accounts whose activity on Commons is solely related to this artist as well. It is plausible that all these accounts are the same person and that this person is in fact the artist themself, and therefore the copyright holder. So perhaps it is more an issue of using multiple accounts for self-promotion. Marbletan (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. Indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet. Taivo (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Adiptokarmakar

Adiptokarmakar (talk · contribs)

Hello, I just filed a mass deletion request for a number of photos uploaded by this user, and considering his talk page, this seems to be a persistent problem. Maybe you can consider warning this user. Thanks, Gnom (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done LTA spammer. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Christian Kalaghit

Christian Lagahit aka Han Mi Nyeo is still socking. This shows that he has still not learnt his lesson. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi SpinnerLaserzthe2nd may i learn my lesson please Christian Kalaghit (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
SpinnerLaserzthe2nd may i learn my lesson please Christian Kalaghit (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
SpinnerLaserzthe2nd What is about lesson Christian Kalaghit (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
SpinnerLaserzthe2nd What is about lesson do i like Christian Kalaghit (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked Christian indefinitely and deleted all his uploads. Taivo (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
If he comes back, please tell him to write an apology about the actions he did. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Quinn286

Uploading a lot of photos which are clearly Copyright violations Đơn giản là tôi (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I've put a warning on their talkpage and explained that images on Twitter and Weibo are not free. Most of their suspected copyvios had at least their source (though not free) declared. --Túrelio (talk) 10:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Harbingerball

File:Harbingerball.png is my own creation, no copyright issues at all Harbinger.mp5 (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you need to add a license-template. --Túrelio (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I added license template Harbinger.mp5 (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Samyarkingof, Samyarbestmen, Samyar music bass

are sockpuppets that have imported selfies for promotional use of a supposed music persona. I have warned one of the them but all there uploads should be deleted and the accounts should be blocked. Pierre cb (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. Blocked, deleted, tagged. Taivo (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo Thanks, but did you perhaps forget to block Samyar ghodrati music (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) ?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
OK. Considering, that this is self-promotion-only user, I blocked him as well. Taivo (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

user:JunoTheSVGVectorizer2007 and user:JunoTehPlanet are probably sockpuppets of each other

Their edit histories and names are extremely similar and neither one appears to be here for legitimate reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know where those users are coming from, but here on Earth the scientific consensus is that Juno is not a planet.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Could be the same person but neither account is blocked, so that's not a violation. The asteroid 3 Juno was originally considered a planet but not my modern standards. It's much smaller than Pluto. However, a planet Juno features in a SF picture book. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Their userpage, "I mess up, corrupt, and re-edit SVG vector files", concerns me. I don't know whether this was intended as a lighthearted joke or as an open statement stating what their intentions are. Unfortunately, it seems their actions indicate the latter. SHB2000 (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose any administrative action. There is no user problem here. I haven't seen the deleted image that somehow was deemed 'WTF' but Dronebogus didn't mention it, nor did they notify either account of this discussion. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Aerin-Hyun

This user Aerin-Hyun (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  kept misusing Template:LicenseReview although they are not a reviewer. Mainly on File:190322 김포공항 CLC 예은.png. They also forged other users' signatures, such as user:Explict, on that page. I sincerely request sysops to take action. Lemonaka (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ blocked for 1 month after the account added a forged license-review for his unfree upload a 2nd time. --Túrelio (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Dark Gama

Dark Gama (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has been repeatedly uploading files with copyvio, despite the warning on his talk page. --Ovruni (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Nuked files, blocked 2 weeks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Anna Maltela seems fundamentally confused

She has uploaded copyvios many times and fraudulently claimed they were her work. Can an admin please explain to her what Commons is and how you aren't supposed to do this? Assuming good faith here, she is very incompetent, but I fear that she's just never going to get it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block and I deleted one duplicate. Taivo (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Miguelrochapinto192003

Miguelrochapinto192003 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  – Persistent copyright issues for over a year now. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user and deleted one copyvio. Taivo (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

BlackStar1991

BlackStar1991 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  upload masses of photos from Ukraine. While some are from CC 4.0 sources, what he often uploads claiming as own work have been deleted for lack of proof. An administrator should keep an eye on this user uploads. Pierre cb (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user. Next time block. Please nominate all suspicious files for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Monteaguilino1

Please delete all files uploaded by Monteaguilino1. They are all copyright violations. I have tagged some but all of them are actually copyvios. Bedivere (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Please note they've also gone on to insult me on my talk page. Bedivere (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked Monteaguilino indefinitely for intimidation/harassment. Now I will delete some (or even most) of his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Taivo. Have a good day. Bedivere (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

2601:192:4380:7230:39D0:758B:EEC7:BF7E

This IP user (contribs) doing edits like personal attack,[57] adding false or unconfirmed information[58][59] and looks like also doing vandalism in Wikipedia.[60] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

As seeing edits, 2601:192:4380:7230:4813:D232:E99D:5891 is probably same user. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 Not done Last edits by 2601:192:4380:7230::/64 (they're the same user) are stale (September 2022). No reason to block now. --Ruthven (msg) 08:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

User:SethSports

Several recent copyvios despite numerous warnings. 188.123.231.41 11:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. The user is warned ((s)he was not warned until now). Taivo (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Viện Nghiên Cứu Quản Trị Kinh Doanh UCI

Viện Nghiên Cứu Quản Trị Kinh Doanh UCI (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is using their user page and user talk page to promote a school (or tutoring business). Also, a majority of this user's uploads appear to be entirely promotional in nature. I'm not sure what the best way is to deal with this. Marbletan (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user indefinitely and deleted most of his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Bekjanbektenbai

Bekjanbektenbai (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  The same mass violations after 1-week block, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bekjanbektenbai. Xunks (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him/her for a month and nominated one more file for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

292イジェク

Please tell Han Mi Nyeo never comeback because he did not learn their lesson. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done by AntiCompositeNumber. --Ruthven (msg) 08:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

More vandalistic HK DR sockpuppetry

The following accounts: User:103.250.52.218, User: Mafalda4144. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mong Kok Buildings 201405.jpg, and thanks! Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked both. Taivo (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Олексій Непота

Олексій Непота (talk · contribs) Three hundred logos uploaded under fake Creative Commons license, despite warnings and deletions. Xunks (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now. Most of the logos are Ukrainian, but per {{PD-UA-exempt}} "symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations", that means all Ukrainian logos are ineligible for copyright. Of course, their license should be replaced with PD-UA-exempt. Recent activity is low, only one upload in October. Taivo (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

user:Longweiner10

Name says it all and is a problem unto itself, only uploads are (unsurprisingly) two unremarkable dick pics. Dronebogus (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Bernd21t - personal attack

Single edit purpose account (possibly a sock) made a disruptive revert ([61]) substantiating it with "Rv fascist ustasha POV vandalism", referring to my prior revert, although the POV had nothing to do with fascism, Ustasha or vandalism. Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I've hidden the attacking edit-summary and finally-warned the user. The infringing edit was nearly 3 months old. --Túrelio (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

user:Steelfri

All pics from this user should be deleted and the user blocked indefinitly (he is already blocked on french wikipedia). Those pics are from a joke on twitter to vandalize wikipedia (french only I hope). You can see the whole problem on french administrators noticeboard here : fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs/2022/Semaine 44#canular : rameutage Twitter pour création de Listenbourg. Supertoff (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hoaxes are not vandalism. Some hoaxes are even notable (this one isn't). The joke seems to be over, the two images have been deleted. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. I warned the user. All uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Minh duc corp

User:Minh duc corp spam/spambot, promotional username. Lemonaka (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I deleted all uploads as spam and blocked the user due to bad username. Taivo (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Arxivist: get very upset that I nominated for deletion several photos lacking publication infomation. I have long been trying to purge Commons of Soviet photos that are copyrighted and done a great deal of work to find PD photos. He refuses to acknowledge that retroactive copyright laws exist and throws various accusations and insults at me (says I'm "monkeying", I shouldn't have to explain how disgusting that word is) despite my attempts to explain copyright terms, treaties, and Commons policies to him, which he thinks he is exempt from. Please deal with this user and reprimand him for this misbehavior--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting request. Most of the nominations are absurd and refer to unknown authors of photographs of people who died or were killed by the Russians in the 1930s. I think the accusations are overblown. To decide whether anonymous photos of almost 100 years ago violate or not - only the court should decide in a separate and each case. It looks like the user decided to remove everything Ukrainian from the 1930s. This is his right. I do not agree with the accusations, as I respect the copyright of the authors. Arxivist (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
"Monkeying" is not a particularly strong word in English, unless it is being used in a context where it has racial connotations. In general, it's no stronger than "messing around." - Jmabel ! talk 21:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
He is still harassing me on my talkpage insisting ukraine photos aren't copyrighted after I asked him to stop. Make him stop. It's getting old.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
1. I did not indicate this anywhere. Please show this.
2. Did you deliberately write the word Ukraine with a small one? If so, then I now understand why you are so eager to remove everything Ukrainian.
3. Please deal with this user and reprimand him for this misbehavior. Arxivist (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Carefully evaluate the actions of this user. It was he who recently created a doll and in Meta spoke about "Nazis in the Ukrainian Wikipedia" ... Arxivist (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I reserve the right to call people who use a userbox that glorifies an SS division a Nazi. I don't give a damn about Ukraine v Russia unless it involves Crimea or copyright. This case involves the latter. You claimed that Russian copyright law was illegitimate on my talkpage and compared it to the anti-gay-propaganda laws.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
It's manipulation. I didn't write it. And he said that with such logic it is possible to bring the entire Commons under Russian bad laws. You put higher Russian laws against Ukrainian ones. Then all photos of gays will be not laws. Crimea is Ukrainian by UN decision. Maybe you can say something fabulous? Arxivist (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Guys, please stop insulting each other. Ad hominem is bad argument in discussions. Please discuss image policies, not each other.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

As I have long been saying, photos with a PD-Ukraine page must state a publication at least 70 years old from the Ukrainian SSR. It's not that difficult. Just because a photo is over 70 years old doesn't mean it was published before the cutoff. Russia has very similar copyright laws, and photos of Ukrainians that were first published in the RSFSR are subject to the current Russian laws about publication. The fact that Ukraine and Russia do not get along does not nullify the copyright treaties they signed that Commons is obligated to respect. But given how this user behaves, I expect he will just continue to insult me here instead of presenting any legal arguements about how he is not obligated to provide publication information to support his public domain claims.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
PlanespotterA320 has been blocked for six months for abusing multiple accounts.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
That's sad, as she's quite an expert wrt copyright of old images from Russia. --Túrelio (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 Comment I closed some DRs which do not have a valid reason, i.e. images from the 19th century, or early 20th century. Yann (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Shethefixer

Shethefixer (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  This user only uploads Indian actress Digangana Suryavanshi. The uploads have META data saying the photo copyright holder is Tejas Badgujar but the uploader claims they are his/her own. Maybe it is the same person and the copyright is OK but this user is definitively making promotion for this actress. I warned the user against promotional uploads. Could an Administrator check this user? Pierre cb (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Shethefixer. Yann (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Cradle of civilization

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

i have written to this user about problems caused by his/her categorisation related to Category:Cradle of civilization, but to no avail. now s/he has added the cat to Category:Peru for 3 times. RZuo (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Approved on Wikipedia. I agree. --Allforrous (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

inappropriate username

I'be indef-blocked new account Ficken30000 (talk · contribs) due to inappropriate account-name. --Túrelio (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User:172.58.172.206

Vandal. See user contributions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Already blocked by Achim55. Yann (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

陳寅恪

陳寅恪 (talk · contribs) uploads are all copyvios or some DW-works as their own works. We need a check for his uploads, thanks. Lemonaka (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Alicealmeidamuniz

User removing copyvio tags (here and here) and doing Commons:License laundering (here). The account very likely another "incarnation" of a globally locked LTA (see here. They, in fact, started re-uploading old pictures uploaded by the LTA before their block (see File:Thiago Luiz.png). Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 21:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 22:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@Yann, another account found, Camilasamara (talk · contribs), obvious sock. Uploaded another picture of Camila Samara de Souza. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 02:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I would like to understand what is the problem with uploading the image, it has a source and was licensed by the broadcaster to be disseminating, whether photo or video of camila samara de souza. Is this abuse and some kind of stalking? Camilasamara (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
"Cross wiki promo-spam" per m:Steward requests/Global/2022-w41#Global lock for Thiago_Juliaci.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Kacamata, @Jeff G.: Blocked. Kadı Message 11:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Kadı: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Kadı Thanks. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 18:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

イクメカ

After the copyvio warning, this user didn't stop posting copyvio photos. Netora (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Netora, ✓ Done. Kadı Message 11:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Lord777

Lord777 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  this user claims owning personally all his uploads but none of them have META data. Many seems to be scanned old pictures from unknown sources and others from unknown websites. Many of his uploads have been previously deleted for the same reason. Could an administrator checked the validity of copyright of these uploads, eliminating the ones doubtful. I will warn the user. Pierre cb (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Nothing to do here - Pierre cb has already warned user Gbawden (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

PauloSilva

This user was given a final warning back in 2016, but they kept uploading copyvio files as far as May 2022. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 23:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

2016 is too far back. Final warning given Gbawden (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Markus04122

This user removed another user’s vote from a DR (Special:Diff/700972924). In response, the other user restored their vote and warned this user that repeating this behaviour would lead to an AN/U report (Special:Diff/701229069).

This user also removed the DR tag from the file description (Special:Diff/700985344) and overwrote the file (Special:Diff/701078010). I restored the DR tag with a warning in the edit summary (Special:Diff/701727301); another user later reverted the file. After the AN/U warning mentioned above, this user again removed the DR tag, and I again restored it with a warning in the edit summary. Finally, this user removed the DR tag for a third time and overwrote the file again. Brianjd (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

They actually reverted my keep vote twice before I restored it a third time with a warning. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek I only see one such removal of your vote, but given their ongoing vandalism, it really doesn’t matter. Brianjd (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I see that an admin has started working on this; there is a new batch of warnings on the user’s talk page.
Also, the user removed this whole AN/U section! I reverted their edit. Brianjd (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
They even removed all of the warnings, I reverted. Lemonaka (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@Lemonaka I wasn’t sure whether to do that, but I was just about to leave a warning to other readers here to check the talk page history.
Also, they just removed the DR tag yet again, which I reverted. How many times can they do this before they get blocked? Brianjd (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
At least they have now archived their talk page warnings. So we are making some progress. Brianjd (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I have renewed the license terms, so that everything is covered. If there are any problems please let me know and please inform me how to solve these problems, thank you! Markus04122 (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I also apologize for my behaviour. I am really sorry for what I have done. I thought, that when the problems in the deletion requets are solved (for example by me), I can remove the deletion request. I really, really apologize! Markus04122 (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I can understand that, but the thing to do is to use the {{withdraw}} template. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek It’s clear from their talk page history that they don’t really know how to edit properly.
@Markus04122 The important thing is to conduct experiments on your own user page, or some other page dedicated to that purpose. Otherwise, if you don’t know what you are doing, leave a message somewhere and let someone else handle it.
Another important thing is to respect the warnings. If people give you many warnings in a short time, then you should stop editing. Ask questions. Make sure you understand the warnings. If something needs to be done, leave a message and let someone else do it. Brianjd (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, i have copied this whole talk to my user's page that I know how to edit properly and to remind me about my behaviour. I have just one question: Is this talk finished or is there something I have to do in case to close/remove this talk? Markus04122 (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I hove that copying this whole talk is appropriate. If not, i will delete this talk (maybe in a few hours) Markus04122 (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@Markus04122 Yes, it’s always OK to copy things to your user space if it helps you contribute to the project. Brianjd (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Brianjd And, how long does it take that I am going to be removed from this site? Or is there still something to discuss about? Or am I allowed to delete this talk? Markus04122 (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@Markus04122 Do not delete this talk. It will be archived if no one comments for a while.
Admins: It might be a good idea to comment if you consider this section resolved now. Pinging @Yann. Brianjd (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_100&oldid=706752814"