Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 96

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

User:ラキたま

After receiving copyvio warning, this user posted the same copyvio images. --Netora (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 1 month by Jon Kolbert. De728631 (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Edelweiiss

This user have been blocked for a week once. No sooner than the block was over, this user restarted to post copyvio images. --Netora (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 1 month. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Kingwarnen

With Jermboy now resorting to removing DR tags by IP address, I believe this DR should be expedited. Fry1989 eh? 21:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

 Support.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't even get why you're trying to mess with that "Jermboy" kid right now. 161.35.52.21 22:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. Multichill (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

User:RenesSans

RenesSans (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  removes deletion template from their copyvio upload: [1] [2] --188.123.231.42 12:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Already warned, file deleted. Yann (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Mixabest

Mixabest (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  removes deletion template from their derivative upload: [3] and describes this nomination as 'vandalism'. --188.123.231.42 13:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Comment Warned, file deleted. May be blocked if continues. Yann (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

Leonthis (talk · contribs) is a new sockpuppet account of Luis camilo álvarez vega (talk · contribs). It makes the same edits as the master account on the same articles. made a request on Meta to lock it globally. --Bankster (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

this user cannot be blocked because I never violate the edits Leonthis (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Bankster, Great minds think alike :) - I asked the global-blocking admin at Meta if these were the same person[4] but never got a response (although I've only just seen Trijnstel's not been on since 7th Nov). Anyway looks like the exact same person. –Davey2010Talk 17:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked Leonthis indefinitely as sockpuppet of Luis camilo álvarez vega. Taivo (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Cvrgy 80 – continuous copyvios

Cvrgy 80 (talk · contribs · logs · block log), a new account of Cvrgy (talk · contribs · logs · block log) – not ban evasion, that's fine – still isn't concerned by Commons' rules about copyright and continues uploading copyright violations (logos, portraits, screencaps with more than 40 bad files since April.--TFerenczy (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I nominated one more upload for regular deletion and blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Carolalitta

Carolalitta (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) keep uploading copyvio files even after two warnings, including a final warning. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 22:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Those 2 last uploading are right! The rules says that famous people pictures can be uploading if it was pictures from events or public places. The picture are from public events and I even credited the person who took the picture. So If that's wrong I don't know what picture I am suposed to upload. She needs to take a selfie and upload?.... Carolalitta (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I believe you misunderstood our rules. On Commons, you can only upload your own work or pictures/images/files that were released under one of the licenses allowed here. You can't simply take pictures from the internet and upload them here, like you did. These pictures are copyrighted and, therefore, what you did was a violation of copyright, a matter that we take pretty serious here. I warned you twice and, yet, you kept uploading these pictures. You didn't seek help to understand how Commons works, you just kept insisting in uploading these pictures. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 23:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. One week block for uploading copyvios after warnings. Taivo (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

PD licence tagging by User:Storye book

AN/U deals with problematic users. Problematic users, for example, upload a lot of copyvios. Storye book (look his/her talkpage and archives) does not upload a lot of copyvios. So this is wrong venue. We have problem with one file and no evidence, that there are more files with similar problems. The one problem file can be nominated for deletion and discussed in DR. Taivo (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2021 (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 identified a problem with File:Giulielma Lister (3).jpg where Storye book (talk · contribs) had claimed PD licences for PD-expired and PD-old-70 despite the author being unknown and no evidence of publication prior to a modern internet blog. On asking on their talk page for any additional evidence they may have to support the PD licences, the answer I received[5] was that:

  1. PD-old-70 is perfectly fine when the author is unkown,
  2. it is okay to assume that a photograph was published shortly after it was taken; and
  3. that they are willing to insert additional PD licence tags when challenged when they "don't believe that it is needed or appropriate."

If this was just the one image, I would have taken this to DR but the user's replies imply that they have used licences for similar situations; "Evidence of date of publication has never been requested of me yet, although I have uploaded nearly 20,000 images to Commons." I am unclear on what proportion of those 20,000 images is problematic but their defence that they are okay to use incorrect PD tags because "90 percent" of the images on Commons have the same problem, suggests the same situation will be repeated in future uploads. Do other users see this as a problem and, if so, how do we resolve it? From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

For an image found on the Internet, there is usually no reason to believe it wasn't published shortly after being taken. Images from private or GLAM archives are a different case. Here we can use {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Thank you for your comment above, and thank you for your edit on Giulielma Lister (3).jpg.Storye book (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore: It is a pity that you have felt the need to start a discussion based on misunderstandings. In your statement above, it would seem that you would wish to cast doubt on all c.20,000 of my file uploads on the basis of out-of-copyright licences, yet you made no effort to discover that actually most of them are my own photographs, most of which are under the self|cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL licence. The remainder (the minority) are mostly dated artworks, photographs and lithographs from the 19th century or even earlier. Where the author is unknown, that is normal in respect of almost all UK 18th to early 20th-century newspapers because all journalists and most photographers were anonymous in that era - and they remained anonymous. Another misunderstanding in your above statement is that one needs to respect the fact that the uploader probably knows more about the specific upload material than you do - for example the matter of dating UK photographs of women without makeup and without dressed hair, which are more than 100 years old. That would be different from US photographs, where female culture in that respect was different from UK culture. We are lucky that in this case we have dated photographs of Giulielma Lister at various ages, in her Commons category; that makes it fairly easy to date the photograph at issue here. Lastly, I did feel intimidated by your assumption that I had committed some sort of major crime in all my uploads when you had not even looked at my work, by your threat of communicating that to others via a public discussion, and by you actually carrying out that threat. The opening of this discussion does not feel like an attempt to improve Commons, to me. It feels like intimidation and hounding. If you put pressure on people and then use their distress and hopeless attempts to please as a weapon against them, then that is like the schoolyard bully threatening their victim that they will tell everyone all that their goaded victim has said when under pressure. I changed the licences in the hope that you would go away and stop pressuring me. You may have originally intended to put right something which you did not understand, but your own overbearing pressure has distorted the situation and made it worse. Storye book (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Storye book: There is quite a lot to unpack there, so this will be a fairly lengthy reply. For ease of reference, I have numbered my responses to each of the issues you mention.
  1. User:Yann's advice is against both the precautionary principle and the requirement for evidence. In particular, the blog where the image is located quotes no previous source, author or date; was it licensed to the blog by the copyright owner, was it used by them without checking copyright (in which case our upload here as PD may constitute License laundering) or have they determined it as being PD? Uploading from blogs is covered specifically by Problematic sources, "Images from blogs should in general not be uploaded to the commons." In this case, the tag suggested by Yann deals with half of the problem and is the same type of anonymous PD tag that you "don't believe that it is needed or appropriate." If you have changed your mind on this point and are in agreement that anonymous PD tags are appropriate for cases where the author is unknown, then that is fantastic news. It still doesn't deal with the publication issue for the US copyright, but at least half of the problem would be resolved if you apply similar anonymous PD tags for future uploads.
  2. I have not claimed that all of your 20,000 uploads are problematic or even implied that the majority of them are. I stated specifically, "I am unclear on what proportion of those 20,000 images is problematic." Characterising my report as a misunderstanding is an error. My intention to seek advice here covers three points; A, is there support for your method of copyright tagging (in which case the community has decided there is no issue); B, is there any concern about you inserting copyright tags that you believe are inappropriate after being asked a single question on your talk page? (this point is the most alarming for me and would have required me to seek community advice regardless of your number of uploads. Did I catch you at a bad time or have you applied what you believe to be invalid licences to others of your uploads?); C; if there is concern about your PD tagging, do we review your previous 20,000 uploads to ascertain if the problem relates to a few files or a few hundred? (you accuse me of "hounding" you over seeking community advice on whether a problem exists; what would you accuse me of if I started tagging your uploads for deletion review without seeking that advice first?)
  3. "Respect that the uploader knows more about the file than you do" - I refer you to my original message,[6] I asked you quite politely whether you had additional evidence about the author's death (due to you using a PD-old-70 tag) or publication. You replied[7] that you are estimating the date of creation from appearance compared to other images (rough but fairly reasonable to give an approximation), that you assume the image was published shortly after creation (as someone who was around long before digital cameras, I can assure you that most photographs ended up in family albums, so were never published) and that you were content to apply a PD licence tag that you believed to be inappropriate just to end a conversation (as I note above, this is the most alarming point for me here. We all make mistakes and we can work to rectify them but to use a copyright licence that you believe to be wrong just to have a quiet life is very unusual. As I point out above, I may have caught you at a bad time and this was just an isolated case).
  4. You appear to be making some odd assumptions about where I am from with your references to UK culture and US culture. For clarity, I am from the UK also; that doesn't change the fact that we need to justify image retention from both the law of the origin country and the US (as the servers are based in the US and subject to US law).
  5. "I did feel intimidated by your assumption that I had committed some sort of major crime in all my uploads." I am sorry if you felt intimidated as that was never my intention. However, you have mischaracterised my concern here. I have never said that the problem lies with "all" of your uploads or even a major part. I stated specifically that there may be concern with an unknown portion of your uploads. You are the one who referenced 20,000 uploads with the implication that you have applied similar licence tagging practice to similar cases that may have cropped up among those 20,000.
  6. "your threat of communicating that to others via a public discussion." I made no threat. I did not give you an ultimatum of "do this or I go public," I simply advised you of my concern and pointed out that I would need to seek advice from the community. You also appear to be misunderstanding Commons as a whole; this whole site is a public communication board. All of our actions are recorded, except where it is appropriate for an Administrator to apply a revision delete.
  7. "It feels like intimidation and hounding." Again, if that is how you feel, then I am sorry for that. However, I have no control of your own thoughts or feelings. My post above points out an issue and asks if it is a problem, and if so, how we rectify it. I have not called for any sanctions to be applied to you, I have not threatened you at any point and I have not repeatedly engaged with you to pursue this issue (please do look up the defintion of "hounding" as that is factually inacurate here even if you have felt some level of intimidation). As I note in point 2 above, if seeking advice from the Community constitutes "hounding," what would your reaction be if I flagged up some of your uploads for deletion review?
  8. "If you put pressure on people and then use their distress and hopeless attempts to please as a weapon against them..." Let me repeat here that I asked you a polite question on background information of your image,[8] and you replied[9] to say that you had applied a licence that you didn't think was correct just to close down the conversation. I am unclear where the "pressure" or "bullying" is in my first question that led to the concerning actions in your first reply. I also do not agree that anything in my second reply[10] could be considered bullying. Again, as I note above, I may have caught you on a bad day and you may have made an isolated mistake. It is still worth flagging up to the community to get a view on whether we dismiss it as a one-off issue or take a look at your larger body of uploads to see if the situation has been repeated elsewhere (again this is not "hounding" but seeking advice on appropriate actions).
  9. "I changed the licences in the hope that you would go away and stop pressuring me. You may have originally intended to put right something which you did not understand, but your own overbearing pressure has distorted the situation and made it worse." I refer you to point 8 above; you changed licences in response to a single question for more information. No pressure was applied and your actions were your own. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @From Hill To Shore: What on earth is going on here? "What would your reaction be if I flagged up some of your uploads for deletion review?" "No pressure was applied and your actions were your own?" Seriously? "Yann's advice is against both the precautionary principle and the requirement for evidence"? You are ignoring the advice that you came here for, you are inventing crimes that I have not committed, and you are inventing attitudes towards licensing which I do not have.
  • The main reason why Commons, and Wikipedia in general, are careful about licensing of images is to protect the system from litigation. Of course we must know about the laws that apply, and the rules which Commons uses in respect of this. However both laws and rules must be used with common sense and with respect for others. They are not there to be manipulated in order to attack or threaten people, especially when the image file at issue has nothing wrong with it, and when your target editor has done nothing wrong. That big-ass lawyer out there, who needs to make a lot of money and bring Wp down for copyvio, is not going to achieve anything with that tiny bit of a 100 -year-old glass plate photograph of a minor biologist, where the photograph is out of copyright, and research has found no evidence of copyright claims, and where that image file shows only good intentions on the part of the editors who have uploaded and edited it. It's a UK photograph, and any UK court would throw out any claim, as the image file stands at the moment. UK law recognises intention, and there is no evidence of bad intentions in the creation of that image file.
  • You have come here for advice, Yann gave correct advice for which I thanked them, you have ignored it, and have repeated your misunderstanding at length, without any attempt to understand or learn. You don't want to let go, do you? I really do feel hounded here. This does not feel like an attempt to improve Commons at all. It feels like something directed personally, and your fears about my past uploads sound like panicked speculation based on nothing. I think you should stop this. You clearly have no idea how much distress you cause by your behaviour. I did not sleep at all last night, and don't expect to sleep tonight either, due to this hounding. Now is the time to stop this, please. Storye book (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2021 (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.

Fevzi kabadayi42

Fevzi kabadayi42 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Was warned numerous times that repeated copyright violations would lead the user to being blocked. User still has uploaded potentially non-free content. User hasn't engaged in discussions. Rather the user attempted to remove the whole discussion in one page. The user also probably removed notices from user talk page. George Ho (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

EugeneZelenko

No real problem here. Yann (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

This user [[11]] has arbitrarily, and with no reason whatsoever, decided that three photos I had uploaded were "unlikely" to be my own work. He says that "I" have to prove that they're mine. On what basis? I think "he" should prove that they're not mine, since they do NOT appear anywhere else on the Internet. Suspects are free: I don't think I should be the one to spend my time to prove something only because "he" suspects, following complicate procedures explained in long technical-detailed service pages half of which I don't understand. I notice that spends a lot of time doing similar things on every file he finds, and I find his work disruptive. Please stop this person: his work is damaging the work of other editors AND Wikipedia. Thank you for your intervention. Acqueamare (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The user, who you are accusing, is an administrator of Commons and he has been entrusted by the community to care about the maintenance of Commons, which is exactly what he is doing here. A view on your talkpage suggests that this may not be unjustified. In addition: Filing an image for deletion does not equal deleting it or automatically lead to its deletion. To the contrary, the DR-discussion provides a platform to discuss the legitimacy and evidence wrt to it. --Túrelio (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, in this case the community should seriously reconsider the people they entrust. What should "a view on my talkpage" ever suggest? Because, instead of being a good girl, I'm reacting to suspicions based on nothing at all? Again I ask: on what basis does he declare that my photos are not mine? On his impressions? I don't think "I" should be the one to discuss this following long and complicate procedures, which I will have to learn by myself since nobody ever bothers to explain. The fact that filing an image for deletion does not equal deleting it or automatically lead to its deletion is irrelevant: it still involves a long procedure that I should follow to prove that yes, I have shot some photos with my mobile phone and uploaded them on Wikipedia. I have done nothing wrong and this is insane. The suspicion of this user "entrusted by the community" has no ground other than his Sacred Word. And please don't support him only out of "esprit de corps". Acqueamare (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Acqueamare: If these images are yours, why don't you upload the original files with EXIF data? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh my god. Not again. Because I DID upload the original files (with the exception I have explained: I cut one of them because I appeared too, and I didn't want my image on Wikipedia), I don't know nor do I want to know what EXIF data are. By the way, I have also asked that the files be removed, since I withdraw my consent to the publications. What I put in question here is the totally uncontrolled behavior of the user I have reported. He should not be allowed to stress people by forcing them into complicate procedures and trials to prove something that doesn't need to be proved. This is NOT good for Wikipedia. Acqueamare (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Acqueamare The whole point of Commons is to provide free cultural media, and Commons takes that responsibility seriously. You have repeatedly claimed that it is not up to you to prove you have the rights to these files, but a Commons policy says otherwise. Brianjd (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
This DR gives as justifications "Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. "
"Unlikely to be own work" is an easy accusation to make. It's hard to prove otherwise and it's very easy to prove that they're not your work, by giving links to their original sources (but no such sources have been provided). Yet the mud sticks.
"small/inconsistent resolutions" and "missing EXIF" are favourite reasons for DRs. You could read the policy-based reasons that such files should be deleted, except that there aren't any. Despite being raised at Village Pump, we have never produced such a policy and it has been repeatedly rejected. Yet the deletions continue.
A further reason (not given in the nomination) is "Facebook".
All these images seem to have come from it:WP. They might be better left there, rather than allowing Commons to delete them.
The real reason for their deletion is of course the title of the nomination: "Files uploaded by Acqueamare". You are not known here. You do not have friends here. You are not welcome here. Therefore it is tidier if all your work is deleted. This is the Commons way. Most usually, files uploaded some years ago will have been forgotten by their uploaders and so may be quietly deleted. There are few Italians active on Commons, there are even fewer who follow obscure filmmakers. So these files are not seen by Commons as having any value, so no-one here will miss them. Their deletion gives Commons admins something to do, which they do enjoy greatly.
I'm sorry that you've been treated this way, but you are far from the only one. I suggest that you keep them on it:WP, where they might be appreciated more. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I can't believe I'm finally reading something that MAKES SENSE. Thank you @Andy Dingley, indeed. Acqueamare (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2021 (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:Kajisa mst 0813

After receiving copyvio warning, this user posted the same copyvio screenshots. --Netora (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Thank you for nominating copyvios for deletion! Taivo (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Problem with User:Ruthven and User:Elcobbola

No real problem here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:46, 10 December 2021 (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.

Hello! I want to open something like an arbitration with two admins, wich may be unusual for this page. But since Commons has no arbitration process I use this page. The 2 admins in question are User:Ruthven and User:Elcobbola. The case is as follows:

At the end of last year I opened a DR on a file because of errors in what it tries to depict, low quality and better alternatives available. Nothing happened until 10 month later Elcobbola closed the DR, keeping the file because it was in use in 2 projects and advising me to discuss the matter in languages I don't speak. Revisiting the file I recognised that the data in the unsourced map were taken from Open Street Map and there were some additional data (hill shading) not available at OSM, thus having originated in another not diclosed source. As not even the licence matched (still does not) to OSM, I choose to request a deletion via copyvio. This was rejected by Ruthven without explanation on the subject just because of the former DR and when I reinserted the copyvio I got blocked by Ruthven for 1 month.

After that Ruthven went to a different map about Georgia that I recently had reverted to the version backed by the given sources after a Georgian Nationalist had changed it back to a erroneous older version that suited his beliefs better. Despite me having given an explanation for every revert, Ruthven did not explain anything. On my talk page he also did not explain the revert other than with his bad faith. In the enduing discussions, also at Elcobbolas and Ruthvens talk page, mostly due to intervention by User:NordNordWest, I had to read a number of insults, defamations and threats especially by Ruthven. Both Ruthven and Elcobbola have acknowledged that the file #1 had copyright issues, but did nothing further regarding the issue. At the end I was unblocked by User:Mdaniels5757, who I had called to my talk page, after over a week.

So my problems with the behaviour of both admins are as follows:

  • Both Ruthven and Elcobbola doing nothing against a copyright violation (File:Staged map of border changes in Karabakh as per 2020 Armenia- Azerbaijan Agreement.png), even after beeing notified more than once and having acknowledged the problem by themselves and in Ruthvens case actively protecting the copyright violation
  • A disproportionate block by Ruthven of 1 month for having reverted him once
  • Ruthven blocking me after being active as admin in the same case with a different action (rejecting the copyvio DR)
  • Ruthven meddling with File:Caucasus 1060n map de.png. The file was created by me (2009) and I was the only contributor (changes 2010). User:Ercwlff reverted the file to the old version from 2009 due to him just not believing in the sources I had given in the meantime. Ruthven reverted again to the version preferred by Ercwlff, without any explanation. His action was not identifiable as an action as admin in any way either. Ruthven thus just acted as edit warrior. Plus Ruthvens/Ercwlffs version conflicted with the sources given for the contents of the map. Thus both produced forgery. And despite Ruthvens false claims I did not revert other's contributions here. That would be impossible, since the only contributions to this file were made by me. He was the one reverting other's contributions without explanation and by this producing forgery/pseudohistory. An as I am the only true contributor to the file and always named as the author, both are suggesting I was the one responsible for the forgery they did.
  • Ruthvens insults, defamations and threats. I will not comment everything he said, just two points: He repeatedly stated that I who worked with numerous scientific sources to compile a map and have no personal involvement in the topic would be less trusted than a self proclaimed nationalist who just expresses doubt because a map does not confirm his ideology. For what was I even doing all the work? Second are his repeated threats, that he could block me again at any time if he would find anything he does not approve. Which is especially terrifying as he uses absurd reasoning as "seeing a pattern" in just 2 edits (everyone and no one could see a pattern he wants to see in a sample of 2) and openly lying those were "reverts without explanations" and putting this up as reason for the block, even if all my reverts in this issue had elaborate explanations (Ruthvens claims). This gives me the feeling of anything I does could be a reason for another block by Ruthven. And it is a red flag for an admin making things up just as they suit him regardless of what happened.
  • Elcobbola supporting Ruthven in his behaviour. Which is even more worrisome as a self-confessed nationalist is also involved in the issue and Elcobbola as a checkuser would be able to access undisclosed data about me.

Judging by his own measures Ruthven should be blocked für 3 month. 1 month for edit warring. 1 month for protecting a copyright violation. 1 month for insults, defamations and threats. If his own measures are refused, he should be blocked for 4 weeks. 1 week for everything aforementioned each and 1 week for abuse of adminship due to the disproportionate block. But I assume different oppinions on that will emerge which I am curious about.

Sorry for so many words and thanks for reading. --Don-kun (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I provided my summary here and my comments speak for themselves. I renew my belief that Don-kun is intellectually dishonest, and consider this complaint disingenuous piffle in bad faith (e.g., "Elcobbola supporting Ruthven in his behaviour. Which is even more worrisome as a self-confessed nationalist is also involved in the issue and Elcobbola as a checkuser would be able to access undisclosed data about me.") Boomerang? Эlcobbola talk 17:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Idem, I clearly explained to the user in the talk page why their behaviour was disruptive (edit warring, for instance). Mdaniels5757 unblocked Don-kun against my advice, and now I invite him to deal with this "revenge" post on AN/U. Ruthven (msg) 20:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Elcobbola, both your summary and your reply here do come across as defamatory. You and Ruthven should be able to explain proper procedure without resorting to such animosity and excessive blocks, and Don-kun was right to bring your behaviour to our attention. Don-kun, this doesn't change the fact that the way forward for you is to start another, non-speedy DR. I know this is frustrating, but it may not take a year this time. You did editwar, and Elcobbola's close was correct given the information they had at the time. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

If Elcobbola's close was corrct is not the issue here. And I have the impression that so far no one here really cares about the rest. --Don-kun (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion says: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." You did the opposite twice. In my opinion block is fair. Unfortunately Commons is understaffed and some deletion requests take almost a year. Sorry for that. Taivo (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

As I already explained, for me the copyright violation was newly discovered. So your conclusion is wrong. Also you did not respond to any of the problems I explained above. --Don-kun (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

This issue is still unsolved. --Don-kun (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2021 (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.

BrusselsPrivacyHub

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Yesterday I was not sure, but as the user is now indefinitely blocked in en.wiki for self-promo and unsuitable username, I decided to block the user here as well. Taivo (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

ServiCops

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. As en:user:ServiCops is indefinitely blocked due to username, I decided to block him/her here as well. Taivo (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Tongfang1

Tongfang1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

✓ Done. You are right. I blocked Tongfang indefinitely as sockpuppet. Taivo (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Amarex

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

 Comment Already warned, no other edit. May be sufficient for now. Yann (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian

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 would like to report RandomCanadian (talk · contribs) for inciting intimidation, harassment and making gibberish (in German) while reporting on Administrators' noticeboard, and see what you done here. --201.222.40.112 01:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as an open proxy. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: To prevent this type of harassment in the future, can you semi-protect my talk page here? I've made it into a soft redirect to my wiki page (as I'm only very rarely here). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
And also block Special:Contributions/Ad_Hominem_Zero (who is a w:WP:DUCK level of suspicious), and probably semi the deletion request if you don't feel like expediting it. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
This user was globally locked from any Wikimedia Foundation wikis for cross-wiki abuse (if suspicious), especially as a sockpuppet of Zalgo (talk · contribs) for talk page abuse on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.39.38.31 (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2021‎ (UTC)
Did you write that about 201.222.40.112, RandomCanadian, or Ad Hominem Zero? See also COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Jeff, Special:Contributions/Ad_Hominem_Zero is gloablly locked. RandomCanadian, I semi-protected your talk page for 6 months. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks. It might be best to just remove this thread if it keeps serving as a magnet for harassment. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2021 (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.

Gameposo

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. The user has not edited after you warned him/her on 2nd of December. Taivo (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I would still suggest that an admin more familiar with copyright scrutinize all of this user's past uploads as a serial copyright violator under F1, particularly the emblems. A majority are falsely marked as "own work", either from video game/video game emulator companies or from websites (often linked in the filedesc itself). I started the DR at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gameposo but as I noted there, I was unsure what fell under TOO so I only nominated ones that were clearly over it. At User talk:Gameposo#Notification about possible deletion, they stated These are files uploaded by Google search and please delete them. Please crack down on non-free works and prevent all users, including me, from uploading files using Google search. I am not sure if this is blanket permission for admins (and whether that is even meaningful under policy given that G7 has a time limit) but it should be noted for considering the deletion of their non-free uploads. eviolite (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons only-account

𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Ezministrator

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@CptViraj: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The user now appears to be abusing talk page access.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Adjusted indef block accordingly. Ciell (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

GeorgiPergelov2009

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by Elcobbola. Yann (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Elcobbola and Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Vulcano

Vulcano (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , even after warnings, has still uploaded potentially non-free files. George Ho (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Comment Warned again. Talk page needs archiving (bot template added). Yann (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Some of the templates there aren't displaying properly and probably needs some fixing. George Ho (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@George Ho: It's because the page has too many templates. I added an archiving template. It should be OK after the bot archives the page. Yann (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

User:SANTAM64

After receiving copyvio warning, this user posted the copyvio photo. --Netora (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, file deleted. Yann (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Request to restore file page

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Burger_king_kamen.jpg - why it was deleted? I ask as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Burger_king_kamen_osm.jpg states it as a source and I want to know whether it was deleted as copyright violation.

Also, would it be possible to restore and delete it again with message that states why it was deleted?

(not entirely sure where is the best place to post it, on Commons:Village pump/Technical I would bother nonadmins, lets say that I have problem with badly done deletion to somehow fit it here)

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow, this file was deleted in 2014! Seems it wasn't missed that much. Now, the uploader himself feared that the design of the depicted building (Burger King restaurant in Germany) might have a protected design and therefore it was deleted 8 years after the upload. IMO, this image might fall under the freedom-of-panorama exception of Germany, provided the photographer was standing on public ground (likely) and all parts of the building were installed permanently (needs discussion). --Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
The crown on top does not look very stable or permanent... I will likely replace use on OSM Wiki. Thanks for the info! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
You might contact original uploader User:Smial by yourself, whether he agrees to have the image conditionally restored and put it through a DR-discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
FoP certainly applies. The crown would not be kept if removed there. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
That was a consequence I drew from one of those unspeakable copyright/panorama freedom discussions that keep coming up. Fun fact: the photo was used quite often as a stock photo on the web at that time, of course without citing the source. If the conviction should prevail that FOP Germany applies here, the photo can be restored because of me. --Smial (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion was certainly incorrect; neither F3 nor G7 would apply here. @Smial: If you now believe that it is OK, then I can restore it. If you are unsure, let's run it through DR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: The right venue would have been COM:UNDEL. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Restore is ok for me. --Smial (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Thx! --Smial (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Matlin

User uploads a lot of derivative works recently per talkpage, also uploading duplicate files like File:-i---i- (16502112912).jpg, File:-i---i- (16501387741).jpg, File:-i---i- (16501389341).jpg, etc. Matlin put thousands of files at a non-estising category. Notifying @Yann and A.Savin: as the previous blocking admin. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a day. Hopefully the user will address the issues before uploading more files. 3 duplicates deleted. Yann (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Janvier16

Janvier16 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days, hoping that they understand. --Ruthven (msg) 11:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

User name

Sorry for my poor english. Please have a look: User talk:5εεωοΙϝ Ηατ αυϝ ΔεͱΗεχεͱϛ Ϝͱεϛϛε ϑεριϛϛτ 2. Name of this User: Seewolf pissed of DerHexer face. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Attack-account indef-blocked, also for inappropriate username. --Túrelio (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Note: Also globally locked. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 09:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Archie Wildes (again)

Still uploaded possibly unfree images, even after June 2021 warning. Was reported in that month. George Ho (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. But in my opinion Archie carefully chooses licenses and what to upload. No obvious copyvios. Some borderline cases, though, about threshold of originality, which must be discussed in corresponding regular deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Katvanit

Katvanit was blocked on English Wikipedia for violating their username policy. Katvanit is apparently an Israeli company which specializes in writing for clients. This can be social media, SEO, marketing or other online service for clients. This probably explains how the user is so efficient in obtaining VRT permissions for their uploads, which are indeed useful across many projects. Now I know the Commons:Username policy is different than Wikipedia's, but it is a universal Foundation Policy that paid contributors at least be disclosed. Since conflict of interest is basically meaningless here, I don't know what action needs to be taken (if any). For these reasons, I thought it best to at least let more knowledgeable people look at this. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Disclosure is not required at Commons per COM:PAID. WMF permits individual projects to divert in this aspect from the general terms of use and we have done that. However, as explained at Commons:Guidance for paid editors, we would like to have user names which do not match the name of an organisation. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 Not done. I see no problem here. Taivo (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Davey2010 playing at admins again.

Davey2010 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Will he either start an RfA or cut it out. Because this sort of edit-warring is wrong. [12][13][14]

There is no policy basis for him blanking this, and certainly not for edit-warring to do so repeatedly. Definitely not in a thread where a number of GF editors have already become involved in it. Was Don forum shopping? Probably. But when Commons operates a parallel discussion structure in the German language, that's hardly surprising, is it? Besides which, our practice has always been to close threads, to sometimes hat them, but not to revert altogether except in cases of obvious, unchallenged simple vandalism, and this is anything but.

@Isderion: , who had already raised this at User talk:Davey2010#Why... and been rebuffed. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

And now, the reverse ferret. [15] Andy Dingley (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Andrew sticking his nose in where it's not wanted nor needed as per - I closed a discussion, got it wrong, and reopened it ... case closed. Didn't need an ANU thread over it Andrew. I think Andrew must have some sort of obsession with me - This following me around malarky is really unhealthy Andrew. –Davey2010Talk 00:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
"And now, the reverse ferret." - Like owning up to a mistake and undoing said mistake's a bad thing!. I'm sure Mr Dingley's never made a mistake in his life.
It would've actually made more sense if Andrew had actually came here to complain over me telling him in not so polite words to leave my talkpage[16] which is why we're really here in the first place. Some may not like my reply but either way I never pinged Andrew and as far as I'm concerned what happens on MY talkpage has absolutely nothing do with him (and vice versa). I don't really know why he has my talkpage on his watchlist given I've repeatedly told him to leave but there we go. If Andrew left me alone we really wouldn't be here now. –Davey2010Talk 00:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley what do you want sensuously. Davey2010 was wrong and he corrected the issue and even apologized on his talk page to Isderion. If this happened two- three times, I would say Davey is wrong and may be partially blocked on COM:VP. But considering that this has happened first time- this is not block worthy. at. all. Contributers2020Talk to me here 03:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Streak of uncivil behaviour

  1. 5 Dec Special:Diff/612112908 "Who the fuck do you think you are?"
  2. 12 Dec edit warring over user comments on a public forum as reported above
  3. 13 Dec Special:Diff/613546940 "When I told you to FO"
  4. 13 Dec Special:diff/613668086 "Not a chance in hell"
  5. 13 Sec Special:Diff/613545616 "Fuck off Andrew no one asked you to post here so go and do one"

(i came across these by chance. feel free to add other uncivil edits you found to the list.)

the reported user was blocked for a week in feb 2017 for incivility. a longer block is necessary to stop these disruptive edits.--RZuo (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  1. 5 Dec - "YES 180.219.70.73 WAS MY IP THANK YOU" - This was your response after I reverted an IP who changed your comment in some way, As explained on your talkpage I'm not a mindreader. Nothing wrong with that comment, Maybe if you didn't expect me to be a mindreader and maybe if you didn't shout at me I wouldn't of had to come to your talkpage asking "what the <naughty word>" was your problem?.
  2. 12 Dec - Again I made a mistake, owned up to that and immediately reverted[17][18] - where's the problem?
  3. 13 Dec - Same as 12 Dec
  4. 13 Dec - Context matters - The full comment was: "When I told you to FO and do one I didn't mean go to ANU Andrew". There wasn't anything remotely uncivil with that comment,
  5. 13 Dec - Meh borderline - I've removed that part from the closing statement as I agree looking back at it it wasn't as nice as it could've been. Wasn't strictly uncivil but wasn't nice either
  6. 13 Dec - I already added that issue above - I stand by every word of that comment - I didn't ping Andrew (nor was he pinged) and he wasn't the topic of discussion so therefore he had absolutely no reason to post on my talkpage, Of course (talk page stalker) exists for a reason and I'm more than happy for anyone to answer a question on my talkpage If I'm not around but in this specific case no questions were asked and no help was asked so again Andrew had no reason at all to come to my talkpage.
I can be uncivil at times I certainly don't disagree with that but in the cases you link above other than the borderline one there is no incivility. Again as stated above (diff) had Andrew not come to my talkpage and essentially poured petrol over the bonfire we wouldn't be here now. —Davey2010Talk 08:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo, I wouldn't say the edits are disruptive, but are mild personal attacks as 1st and 5th are direct to a user. I now may want to change sides as all know I am too strict to personal attacks as because of someone even this can happen. Can suggest to the sysops for 2 week partial block on Commons namespace and User talk pages? Contributers2020Talk to me here 06:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@Contributers2020 And what does a 2 week block achieve?, Do I tell everyone to f off on a daily basis ? No. Do I ask people "who the f do you think you are ? No (I believe that's the first time I've ever said that and would sincerely hope it's the last).
Like I said above I'm by no means an angel here I have my flaws as we all do but at the end of the day for once I'm not really the problem here - If I tell Andy previously to go away and if there's bad blood between us one would therefore assume he simply wouldnt ever post on my talkpage again unless he really had too. He poked me and got a reaction from it ....
If Andrew stays away from me (and vice versa) and if RZ doesn't expect me to be a mindreader and know when he's using an IP then we won't have any problems. I shan't reply further as don't want to sound like a broken record and don't want to bludgeon the discussion, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
But Davey, you do keep trying to do admin-like actions on a near-daily basis, and you're persistently and unwarrantedly abrasive with all of them. To the point where half of your edits are you coming back to censor your own comments afterwards. I wouldn't mind you doing admin stuff, except that you're not very good at it. In this thread, the original point, you edit-warred three times to do the wrong thing. And no, you didn't revert it and apologise – at least not until you were dragged here first. Trying to just drop a hint on your own talk: first hadn't worked, as you told me to "Fuck off Andrew no one asked you to post here so go and do one." in no uncertain terms.
What part of CIVIL do you think doesn't apply to you? Do you think that now you're a big tough editor, hanging out with the big names and getting people banned, the rules no longer apply to you? (Sadly, you're probably right on that one.)
It's not even your abuse that annoys me more, it's the stalking and hounding, which of course you sealion up as "Oh, but I was just coming here anyway" Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mission Blue (9130105427).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chinook salmon found by Roger Castillo on San Tomas Aquino Creek mid-Oct. 1996.jpg. In that last one, did you pop up to berate me, or to agree with me? Hard to tell.
No, I'm not looking for any admin actions here, because I know I won't get one (or will I be the next to get a visit from Friends and Family as well?) But as I said at the start, either become an admin, or don't. But you first need to see if the community [sic] has faith in you for doing that, because I certainly don't. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Please keep up Andrew, The LR diff you point too above was me removing the wording as per the subsection below. Do you have any sort of proof that "I'm not very good at admin closures"? .... I've closed a good few discussions although sure I don't always get it right and you know what Andrew I'm damn fucking proud to admit that - Because I'm not a perfect human being and will make mistakes like we all do!, It's nature to make mistakes - believing otherwise is just delusional .
Andrew although I cannot prove it I was going to undo all before you stuck your nose in - Trust me when I tell you you're the very last person I would take advice from so your comments on my talkpage A) went unread) and B) had no influence on my decision (because again I made that decision in my mind before you came)
I don't know if I'm being dense but how does the very first DR "hound you?" .... I nominated an image for deletion so how is that hounding you ? (genuinely I'm lost on that one), the 2nd DR was indeed me following you and "hounding/berating you" - not nice is it Andrew. Maybe you should stop posting on my talkpage in future that would be a fabulous idea.
Andrew, helping out here doesn't mean I want to become an admin, closing discussions isn't really an adminny thing either so I'll continue to close them where I see fit (although this is actually very rare anyway)
If you're not looking for any admin actions then why are you creating pointless threads such as this and wasting the admins time ?, I'm sure they all have far more important things do to be doing than reading all of this rubbish. You leave me alone, I'll leave you alone, easy peasy Andrew. –Davey2010Talk 17:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
"and getting people banned" - Andy Dingley, Explain how I get people banned ?, You better have some damn good evidence that I "get people banned". I don't know if you're referring to Rod or just people overall but either way you can provide me with some damn good evidence of that. Or failing that if you don't have evidence you can retract that statement or I'll retract it for you.
And again can you please explain how this DR is hounding anyone ?,
Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 21:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
True to my word Andrew I've now struck your incorrect statement because it's factually incorrect - If anyone's ever got blocked it's been because of their own doing and they certainly didn't need my help. If you were referring to Rod (I certainly hope for your sake you wasn't) then no I didn't tell him to make a death threat nor did I ask for him to come to my Wikidata talkpage (a project which I never edit!). I turned off emails from them here so therefore that would be a clear indication I didn't want to conversate with them further. I'm going to cease replying and will go back what I do best which is help our readers in some beneficial way. –Davey2010Talk 16:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 Comment General warning. This circus is going on for too long. You better stop it, or you will be blocked. Yann (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Yann Maybe you should ask Mr Dingley not to make false statements otherwise I wouldn't of had to come back would I ?, If it makes you happy block me. This project needs me more than I need it. –Davey2010Talk 19:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Get some holiday, enjoy Christmas, eat chocolate, and come back with the new year. Yann (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Shewriteshistory uploaded multiple photos without permission

Shewriteshistory has uploaded multiple photos without permission, possibly in good faith. Nevertheless, Shewriteshistory might need some encouragement in emailing VRT. --I dream of horses (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned her. Copyvios are mostly nominated for deletion and I nominated one more copyvio for deletion. Taivo (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi guys, thank you so much for your help. I've been working with Sandra Brown, the daughter of Sam Lewis, to get her permission. The photos are more than 70 years old, so there is no copyright on them. Perhaps there is another way I could describe them to make them valid for Wikimedia use. Please let me know. Shewriteshistory (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@Shewriteshistory: I'm afraid there are multiple faults in your reasoning. First of all, owning the copies of photographs does not make you own their copyright. The copyright rests with the original photographer and not the person depicted unless it was transferred in a written contract. So it is not the Sam Lewis's family that needs to grant their permission for a free licence, but the heirs of the photographer. Next, the 70 years term you mentioned usually refers to the life of the original author plus 70 years, and in the United States where the copyright term depends on the year of the first publication of a work, the protection may be even longer. So, if those photos had been resting in a family archive and were never published until now, the protection term is actually 70 years after the photographer's death if the photographer is known, or 120 years after the creation of the photos. And third, if there is, like you wrote, no copyright at all in those photos, you cannot grant a Creative Commons 4.0 licence for them because that would mean that there is a copyright holder who allows anyone else to use their works under the terms of the licence. De728631 (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@De728631Thank you for your detailed answer. Please, help me out here: under the circumstances, what would be the best way to allow the use of these photos? Some of the photos were taken by family members - like Sam Lewis' wife, so I believe that we shouldn't have a problem using them, if their daughter allows permission. What would be the case regarding other photos of his that we don't know who the photographer is? Shewriteshistory (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
For the photos by Sam Lewis' wife, please ask the daughter to send a permission as described in COM:VRT. She should also mention the relevant file names. Also, a permission for Wikipedia only as it is often done in such cases is insufficient. All uploads at Commons need to be free for anyone to use for any purpose which includes commercial reuse. So a licence like Creative Commons by attribution 4.0 or similar is recommended. In case of an unknown photographer, the copyright rests with the person or company who first published those photos. De728631 (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Mgendy00

This user has been creating tons of pages where the sole content is their signature. They've been indef blocked on Wikipedia for this same reason (see w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1077#Newish user creating dubious pages in template space, and I've blocked them on Wikivoyage per this. I don't know whether Commons also has a one strike policy too, but this also appears to be happening on numerous other wikis too. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This user also appears to have been warned by Ymblanter and Jeff G. as well. SHB2000 (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done blocked for 1 week. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Minorax Thanks :) SHB2000 (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Minorax and SHB2000: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G. User now appears to be globally locked. SHB2000 (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

User:狐の婿入り

After receiving copyvio warning, this user posted the same copyvio photo.--Krorokeroro (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

possible block evasion

See [19]. If this isn't Jdx, they are doing an good job of acting exactly like them. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It's getting clearer with each edit that this person is here to try and harass and attack me. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Already blocked 6 months by Achim55. Yann (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Алтаир1978

Алтаир1978 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  all user's uploads since the last block are clear copyvios, please check and put things in order. --188.123.231.55 21:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. User has not edited during 2 months. Yann warned Altair and at moment that's enough. Taivo (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Cardohnalboyah (talk · contribs)

Another Jermboy sock. Please block and delete all uploads. Fry1989 eh? 14:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed by Turelio, files deleted by me. De728631 (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Lindelboy123 (talk · contribs)

This one as well, please. Fry1989 eh? 14:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Roadsignsover9500 (talk · contribs)

Also this one, please. Fry1989 eh? 17:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I deleted all uploads, because I do not believe they aren't hoaxes. Taivo (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Trijnstel and Martin Urbanec: Would you please help with m:srg#‎Global lock and block for Cardohnalboyah et al?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Foiledboy27 (talk · contribs)

Also this one, please. Fry1989 eh? 15:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted) Foiledboy27 (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. Indefinitely blocked. Taivo (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Saikakohei

After receiving copyvio warning, this user posted the same copyvio photo. --Netora (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. 3 days; all his uploads are the same photo. --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. Now I blocked the user for a month. All contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

User:User4edits

User4edits (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has received an end copyvios warning but continues to upload images with false claims of PD etc. Uploads need to be deleted and user requires some sort of admin action too.—SpacemanSpiff 14:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Uploads stopped after EugeneZelenko warned the user and nominated a lot of uploads for deletion. Taivo (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
User reports understanding. It is further reported that the user has not uploaded anything in violation after being informed on PD usage. The sense of 'contined upload' seems to have emerged when a proper sequence of events perhaps, inadvertently, has been ignored.. User4edits (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Proven socks belonging to a LTA

Hi, I ask a sysop to block the following accounts: Bozs (talk · contributions · Statistics), J De cinema (talk · contributions · Statistics), Samuca Berro (talk · contributions · Statistics), Marcelo Canaleta (talk · contributions · Statistics), Camila Maciel Estefani (talk · contributions · Statistics), Her Passl (talk · contributions · Statistics), Sérgio Castelar (talk · contributions · Statistics), O revolucionário aliado (talk · contributions · Statistics) and Lentoster (talk · contributions · Statistics). They are all proven socks of Pé Espalhado (talk · contributions · Statistics), a en:WP:LTA mostly active in the pt.WP (their home wiki), but who also "spread" to other WMF projects, including the Commons. The can be found here. If you need, I can open a "Request for checkuser" here on Commons, but as the checkuser's results are valid in all the WMF projects I think it's unnecessary. Regards. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 21:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Abusing multiple accounts is prohibited. I see here using multiple accounts, but not abusing them. If you still want to have them blocked, then you must complain in meta, but I do not want to block them. Taivo (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kacamata and Taivo: Please see m:srg#Global lock for Pé Espalhado et al.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion this was really unnecessary. Taivo (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Taivo They are abusing on pt.WP. Actually, there, they are one of their worst LTAs. I was trying to prevent them to abuse another projects where they are active. Otherwise, I would have to track and watch every single of these accounts in order to assure that they'll not return in the future to cause damage to other projects. As they are all proven socks, I thought it would much easier to simply block all these accounts. I only listed here the socks/accounts that are active on Commons. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 21:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

B.Ảnh1234

Suspected to be a sockpuppet of Lý Ngọc Đạt. All of their uploads are portraits of Vietnamese and Lao politicians. Some of them are legitimate, others are likely copyrights violations (I have reported one of them). Some of their uploads has a name started with "Mr." or "Mrs.", much like other sockpuppets of Đạt.--Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 08:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Another one, with same pattern. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 07:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Gateshebe

Gateshebe (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  – continual upload of non-free content, despite the previous block and large number of warnings. --Teslaton (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. One month block. Taivo (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Impossibleultimate1545

Copyright violations. I've already nominated the images for deletion. User is involved in an ANI on on English Wikipedia involving, among other things, sockpuppetry; the user is unresponsive to talk page warnings/notifications. RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent. Some files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Modfrplays

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent. All files already deleted. Yann (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Dj Nosta 2 Larue

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Ali724444

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

User:ពេជ្រសោភា1

ពេជ្រសោភា1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

✓ Done. Indef'd; see also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#C22H30N6O4S.--Túrelio (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Next SP: Fcc12 (talk · contribs). --Túrelio (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Thanks, the appropriate button appears to be here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done by Yann.--Túrelio (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Túrelio and Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Túrelio, Achim55, and Yann: Every time one of the socks of Sokreas87 is caught, Sokreas87 should be blocked longer as continuing to abuse multiple accounts.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

GabrielDorneles

Has uploaded a great number of files (1,000  !), obviously not own works, all with wrong licenses (CC-BY-SA). Some of them may be kept as PD-old, or for another reason, but all need to be checked. Yann (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Yann: Film posters are per COM:SPAIN still under copyright as it is unlikely for their respective authors to die in year of publication. Same goes for magazine covers and probably bodybuilders. I would delete files listed in my answer per PRP. Sincerly, A09090091 (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

欣欣客運代理商股份有限公司

Sockpuppet account of User:鄭啟民. --Solomon203 (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 09:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Ritam Kumar Das

Only engaged in uploading copyright violation images. Has been warned several times earlier. Run n Fly (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

AntonVime has multiple copyright violations and i suggest a block. Thanks and good holidays for everyone. --Drakosh (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Deleted and final warning issued. Thanks Herby talk thyme 13:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Global ban proposal for Musée Annam

There is an on-going discussion about a proposal that Musée Annam be globally banned from editing all Wikimedia projects. You are invited to participate at Requests for comment/Global ban for Musée Annam on Meta-Wiki. Thank you! (nominator on Meta: NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk))

Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

 Support a global ban but I'm unable to edit meta. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Toom0007

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Awesomus

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Range of most likely copyvio from Aceyuta77

Hello Team,

The user Aceyuta77 is uploading pictures from the professional wretling from the PCW federation, a comedian's Facebook account[20], but I see no mention of Creative Commons on their website. The content include posters for events to come, photographs made by the border of the ring photographs and screenshots. I tried contacting him on his message board, but he did not answer. Could you please delete the pictures uploaded and warn him it is not how to use Commons?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Best regards, --CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent. Posters deleted. Other files tagged. Yann (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks!Thank you. --CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Leo Eliss Rhodes

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I get the impression they're a child or have the mental age of one. IMHO they're of no value to this project and chances are never will be. But saying that people can and do change within a few years. –Davey2010Talk 15:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Their userpage should also be deleted. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 17:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Clearly NOT HERE. Yann (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Noham54000

— Ætoms (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

J. Patrick Fischer (talk · contribs)

File:Ein freches Mädchen zeigt Stinkefinger.jpg The motto of this user

Harassing me and other uploaders with massive amount of frivolous deletion requests. Seems to refuse to drop the stick. Can another admin please have a look? Multichill (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. All nonsense DRs closed. Yann (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Sequelae = It's gonna be awesome

Sequelae = It's gonna be awesome. See File:Northern drifters in TRA PPH1326 at Kaohsiung Station 20201231.jpg and File:TRA PPC1453 was crowded at Tainan 20190403.jpg. @Yann: Please CheckUser. --Solomon203 (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

See also: w:en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of It's gonna be awesome --Solomon203 (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Yann (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

180.214.232.18

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. All DRs closed. Yann (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

台灣巴士企業

台灣巴士企業 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is a sockpuppet account of 鄭啟民. See Category:Sockpuppets of 鄭啟民. @Yann: Please CheckUser. --Solomon203 (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Solomon203: Yann is not a Checkuser on any WMF project; please see COM:RFCU and m:srg#Global lock for socks of locked 鄭啟民.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks! --Solomon203 (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Meiaz

Several uploads of Meiaz (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) are "problematic". I marked several of them as missing important info such as the source, but the editor reverted all my edits. Some of the images they uploaded here (like here, here and here) are said to be "self-photographed" and state another person as the "author" but the links redirects to this editor's own account. Like if they were taking ownership for other people's work. All the essential info in their uploads are contradictory. Also, none of the files they uploaded here have a proper metadata. I really think most of the files they uploaded here (if not all) are files taken from somewhere else and therefore copyvio. I'm asking if it's possible for some sysop to check their uploads. Regards. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 01:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I just found out that this user had a past problem with socks. So it might be worse than I thought. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 02:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

VishuN

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by Yann Gbawden (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Yann and Gbawden: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Baijumaev

Baijumaev (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  re-uploaded some copyvios after deletion. --188.123.231.53 17:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Final warning given Gbawden (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Gbawden, and what about File:Жанайдаров.jpg??? --188.123.231.53 08:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done, deleted 08:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC) thanks to Gbawden!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Laura2505

After receiving warning, this user re-posted same license laundered file. (File:Emi at the interview.jpg) The first copyvio file (File:Emi Kusano on TV show “Sensors”.jpg) is posted by the other user. User:Lalaism. Laura2505 may be sockpuppet of Lalaism.--Netora (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

LTA evasion

It is a new iteration of LTA Luis camilo álvarez vega (talk · contribs) that recurrently appears to vandalise not only Commons but also eswiki and enwiki. It makes the same edits as the master account on the same articles. made a request on Meta to lock it globally. --Bankster (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Arghamallick5151

Arghamallick5151 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

This user upload photos from his website. While they are nice they seems to me to be self-promotion and a conflict of interest as Commons is not to promote a website. Could an administrator clarify for this uploader. Pierre cb (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: Which files are you referring to? If someone is uploading out of scope or promotional images you can warn them yourself, you don't need an admin for the initial warning(s). I use the User Messages gadget for this. I have removed a link from their user page but otherwise I don't see an issue Gbawden (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Most of this uploader have watermarks from the website source. Pierre cb (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 Not done. I believe own work. Out-of-scope files can be nominated for regular deletion. Files with watermarks can be tagged with {{Watermark}} and the watermarks can be removed. One of the uploads is heavily used in multiple projects. Categorization is generally poor, but this is not a reason for deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Ratcoon2

Ratcoon2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

✓ Done. All uploads deleted and account blocked for 2 weeks. --Túrelio (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

YuriBro821 serial copyvios

YuriBro821 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Serial copyvios and false "own work" claims on aircraft.

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Latam linhas aereas A320.jpg (bundled images), deleted and warned 1st Jan, and now File:Voepass.png, uploaded since. Delete all and block needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user. Next time block. All uploads are deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Iamirabar / User:Abaramir

Repeatedly uploading the same two copyvio images, plus some selfies. Both accounts have been warned to stop. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. Sockpuppetry plus violation after warnings. I blocked both indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Paolos004

✓ Done. I blocked Paolos indefinitely as sockpuppet, but I did not revert anything. Taivo (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Gazinit multiple copyvios despite warnings

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

Please see contributions history and talk page Timtrent (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. Indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet. All contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo Thank you. In order that I can raise an SPI on en WP (if relevant) may I know of whom this editor is a Sockpuppet, please. Please ping me on any reply. Timtrent (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
OOpsy. I failed to check the one place it stated it! Timtrent (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Heyhelloitsmelol

Only engaged in re-uploading copyright images from news websites and Instagram accounts and claiming many of them to be own. Run n Fly (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Already warned, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Пентель

Both are continuously uploading CSD#F10 images. Both were warned to not recreate files, but my warning probably won't last. A09090091 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Sock blocked indef. Older account blocked for a week. All files deleted. --Yann (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Megaph

This uploader continues to upload problematic and unfree image files, even after warnings on their talk page. Megaph also vandalizes decent files by overwriting them with copyright-problematic images, like File:Brgy. Telaje, Tandag City.jpg. See also Special:Listfiles/Megaph. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files (except one) deleted. --Yann (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Yann: . Oh, by the way, File:Mt. Asog.JPG still contains the user's problem files. Those files need to be revision deleted. Thanks in advance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done --Yann (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. I deleted the last remaining upload due to failed license review: NC license with other restrictions on source site. Taivo (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

User:André365173

André365173 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) keep uploading pictures they take from internet as their "own work" even after a final warning. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 17:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Aespablackmamba04

Uploading bunch of copyrighted images (including logos) since July 2021 and falsely claiming it as licensed under CC 4.0.

I have tagged all of them for CSD. — Paper9oll 09:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user and deleted speedily some copyvios due to failed license review. Taivo (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks you. — Paper9oll 15:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Foildking142 (talk · contribs)

This is another sock of the Jermboy account. Please delete all uploads as well, it only encourages them if the images stay. Fry1989 eh? 00:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Already blocked by Magog the Ogre. Yann (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Marliojersey (talk · contribs)

This one as well, please. Fry1989 eh? 14:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I see they've been blocked, but the uploads also need to go, please. Fry1989 eh? 16:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Lololand4362 (talk · contribs)

This one and their uploads as well, please. Fry1989 eh? 15:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

And also the uploads of Gohkenytp90909 (talk · contribs). Fry1989 eh? 15:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. Both blocked, all uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Mmedstereast and bulk categorisation changes to DRG Class 44 etc

Mmedstereast (talk · contribs)

Ping @Tsungam: and @Yann: as recently involved.

A large overnight run (hundreds) to move a lot of content on preserved German steam locos from the per-loco categories to the broader per-class category, leaving the loco categories empty and likely for speedy deletion. e.g. [21] [22]

It's questionable whether this should have been done. I would oppose it. If "they should be in the parent cat" is really vital, then they should be there in addition (I wouldn't oppose that, if other editors wanted it). But as it is, it destroys the per-survivor cats and is tantamount to a bulk category deletion. So as an absolute minimum, there should have been prior discussion of this. Magnus has already reverted a few, but really this needs a big admin mallet and a bulk rollback.

Some other changes, e.g. [23] seem reasonable.

There's also a recent SPI Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mmedstereast which closed in an unclear fashion, although the user page is still tagged as a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

A bulk rollback for Puminuno (talk · contribs) would be useful too, as they've jumped onto the current situation. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I was actually right. In 2015, users wanted to remove categories because they were redundant, now they wanted to restore categories. Some users are sinking. First rewerted and deleted new categories, now revert SD request. the categorization rules lie fallow. Anarchy is rampant on this site, administrators are inconsistent. It's not worth getting involved. Even if you want to correct something that outraged the editors, it turns out that you are doing something wrong. In a few years, someone will want to create new categories, then there will be an uproar again. Over and over again. --Mmedstereast (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I would like to point out that in locomotive series in other countries doesn't exist separate categories for one locomotive. Existence separate categories for 1-2 photos of one from many locomotives within one locomotive's class is making a mess on Commons. User 95.41.17.58 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 46.76.30.119 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 5.60.27.239 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 31.1.80.89 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  made in 2015 many separate categories according to locomotive numbers. His editions were mass reverted. Categories make by him were deleted. These editions have been criticized by the editors. [24][25][26][27]. In many cases the locomotive numbers were made up. In one case, the category was created for locomotive model! It was absurd that separate categories were created even for EDV numbers. Therefore, in order to standardize the categorization, I remove redundant and counterproductive categories. it's really funny how someone creates hundreds of categories for separate numbers, users were indignant and deleted some categories, but when it turned out to be too many, abandoned the problem. Now, when someone wants resolve the problem with it, the situation repeats itself, but now suddenly are defenders of these changes. In 2015 users wanted deleted categories because there were reduntant, now wanted restore categories. Seen on commons is problem with rules of categorisation. The editors change their minds like a flag in the wind. --Mmedstereast (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

If you thought there was a case to make against these, then why didn't you try to make it beforehand? Especially if you thought there was such widespread support to remove them. But you didn't, and for a change this broad (even if you're right) you need to involve other editors first.
Also your claim "locomotive series in other countries doesn't exist separate categories for one locomotive" is simply untrue. Now I don't advocate this as a general practice for locos that are still in service, but here we're talking about the relatively rare examples that have been preserved after withdrawal. For those we certainly justify having per-example categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
First I had to analyze it, after thinking and analysis , I found that many separate categories actual are reduntant because contain 1-2 pictures and some categories are not tragic at first glance but I noticed a dangerous precedent, when are creating separate numbers for EDV numbers. Some locomotive sometimes has two categories for separate periods of designations that is Deutsche Bundesbahn or Deutsche Reichsbahn. Besides, with a certain limit value of the number of photos, there should be separate categories? Categories for just a few photos are reduntant. Like making a separate categories for locomotives as monuments and categories for this same locomotives from the time of operation. ockham's razor is in my opinion the best way. --Mmedstereast (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
You could address issues like that by adding the images as well to the class category. Or by limiting the per-loco categories to one per physical example and using longer, composite names. This is done a lot for French classes where there were several railway companies and classes were renamed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Please make corrections yourself, you are in action only when you need to pay attention to someone. Your inconsistency is acting on your unreliability anyway. On the exampple 18 201 and 02 0201-2 are designations of this same locomotive and existing two separate categorie are unsense. In example polish locomotives we have four or five changes of designation in history. As you can see the editors the editors don't mind making a rubish bin from this portal Category:Express passenger tender locomotive 18201 in Bebra (2012), existing categories for any places where was photographed locomotive is disorder. 18 201 is a fame locomotive and was in many places. Commons is a cesspool in which administrators are drowning apparently they like it. Never wrestle with a pig – it gets mud all over you and the pig likes it. --Mmedstereast (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)--Mmedstereast (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mmedstereast: Take back that personal attack.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I am not talking about the previous speaker. The problem is general and does not concern just one editor. Instead of finding a solution, you can only pick on me. There are no uniform rules for categorization? --Mmedstereast (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mmedstereast: We allow categories with one member, as well as flat list categories.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mmedstereast: I don't know if you are right or not, but attacking people will make you blocked very soon. You better keep a polite language, and discuss pleacefully. Yann (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The existence of a category with one photo of the steam engine is acceptable? A peaceful discussion is difficult, as I have shown, the administrators' opinion is different from 2015. As can be seen in the discussion at that time, there was also a great uproar. at least I spoiled your holidays and you have to deal with me instead of spending time with your family. --Mmedstereast (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I  Support action, this edit admits to trolling to spoil our holidays.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Now Allforrous is trying to get the emptied categories speedily deleted.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Reverted. Yann (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I blocked Allforrous for edit-warring. Yann (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup

I think I've reverted what's needed (but may of course have missed some or otherwise goofed)

However we're now missing a number of categories (these are just a few of them) that Túrelio speedy deleted soon after they'd been emptied. These (and the others) need to be restored. Yet again, this is why speedy deletions of empty categories must not be done immediately, and if the category has (as here) been emptied out of process.

Andy Dingley (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Restored. However I think these categories should be renamed to a more explicit name, with a redirect. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, but as noted there are still plenty of these missing cats to restore. That requires access to either Túrelio's deletion log (which I don't have) or the redlinks on the list of moves here: [28].
I've no issue with renaming these category names to be clearer. GB practice is like this: Category:British Rail Class 59 59103 (although "class" shouldn't be capitalised). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good name. And the log is here. Yann (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I was offline between 26th and 31st. -Túrelio (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Are you going to undelete these? [29] Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@Túrelio: ? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Extended content

User:Mr. Tripto Rahman

Mr. Tripto Rahman (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Self-promoter who has uploaded the same selfies a few times and removed deletion templates from them. They aren't contributing to any Wikimedia projects, outside of a speedily deleted autobiography draft on Wikipedia, and turning their Commons userpage into a promotional biography. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned Rahman. All uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo: The user doubled down.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. All contributions, including userpage deleted as spam. Block is not needed at moment. Taivo (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo: How about now that he doubled down again?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. One week block. Next blocks will be longer. Taivo (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Leotheis

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

User:VadelBlackwell

User: VadelBlackwell (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Uploading a copyvio image ("Source: Google image") after having been warned and temporarily blocked for the same problem last year. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

User:MOBINEHASANI

User: MOBINEHASANI (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Uploading copyvio images months after a final warning last April. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done I issued another warning as the last upload goes back to July 2021, hence I can't block him. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: So that I know when to re-warn a user rather than report them here, in future: what's the reason you can't block him? --Lord Belbury (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Blocks are preventive, not punitive. For a user who has not edited since since 25 July 2021, a sudden block nearly six months later would not be reasonably expected to be preventing anything. Эlcobbola talk 21:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) He seems to have left Wikipedia for good. He was active in summer making some biography at fawiki and uploading related pictures here at Commons. He seems gone and blocking him does not protect the project more than just leaving him warned again. If I want to block him the only sensible block period is indefinite because we don't know when/if he comes back, and I find blocking a newbie user indefinitely a little too harsh, especially since the granted unblock requests ratio is quite low here. All in all, I think cleaning up the mess he left is enough and all his uploads have been deleted. Of course, if recent copyvios by him get reported on time, he most probably will end up being blocked some day. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that feels a little reckless to me, to wait for a user's next copyvios and hope somebody spots them, and spots them quickly, but if it's how things work here, I'll keep it in mind in future. --Lord Belbury (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Lopezsuarez

the user Lopezsuarez blocked on enwiki, now is doing editions likes a revenge against users who report him in such wiki, he uploads derivative works without improvements of photos of the other users --Ezarateesteban 21:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I confirm this situation, at least with images that I uploaded. From this original, he created this derivative, but it does not improve the image at all, it actually deteriorates it since it cuts out the building and architectural elements present in the original image. --Rodelar (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ezarate and Rodelar: When you report an account here, you should inform them on their talk page. This time I did it for you. Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I am surprised by that statement. It is totally false, I have edited that image so that it is in a 16:9 size, which is the most common in images of towns. I did not know who the author was, and I have done this with all the municipalities in other provinces, such as Almería and Jaén (200 municipalities/images). Originally, automatic images appeared, of different sizes, and there were other better photos, and I have selected the ones that looked better.
I don't understand what the problem is, but I can get the original photo of La Mata back if it bothers anyone.
By the way, I am not blocked on enwiki. Lopezsuarez (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Lopezsuarez is not blocked at enwiki but on eswiki for half a year – this will expire on 17 March 2022. He apparently believes that the 16:9 format is to be preferred even if this is a bad crop as in the example of File:Ayuntamiento de La Mata, en Toledo (España).jpg which has now been inserted in numerous Wikipedia articles ([30], [31], [32], [33], [34] etc. etc.). At en:wp this is in contradiction to MOS:IMAGEQUALITY and this is unlikely to be welcomed on other projects. It is great to look for photos for articles that do not have them yet. But the issue with these mutilating crops should stop. Another mutilating crop is File:Polopos (Granada, España).jpg which is derived from File:Polopos.jpg. Or File:Catedral de la Natividad de Ntra. Señora y Fuente de Santa María, en Baeza (Jaén, España).jpg which was derived from File:Baeza Catedral de la Natividad de Nuestra Señora north side.jpg by cutting the cross at the top of the church and the base of the monument in the front. Another problem is File:Torre del Reloj, en Arquillos (Jaén, España).jpg which has been derived from this photo which was published in 2009 under a GFDL license. This must not be migrated to a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license, see Commons:License Migration Task Force/Migration. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I agree most of these croppings do not provide value in Commons neither in the Wikipedias they are used. This stuff (reuploading uploads [in use] by other users with no improvements at all or minimal changes (whether by cropping or photoshopping), and then replacing the original files in Wikidata and Wikipedia) has been a trend in populated-places-of-Spain-related articles in es.wikipedia for a while, being involved not only Lopezsuarez but a few more accounts too. In the other hand, the claim "16:9 size (...) is the most common in images of towns" certainly needs a source. Strakhov (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


Being blocked on a Wikipedia for totally unfair reasons, which I asked to review and haven't been reviewed since I asked in September (they haven't given any answers because they know I'm right) has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. The user Ezarate accuses me of something meaningless:

  1. I have not cropped any images to annoy anyone.
  2. I haven't cropped any images uploaded by "users who report him in such wiki".
  3. I don't even know which users upload the original photos. Some are even my own ([35], [36] or [37]).
  4. Photos like this, this or this (for example) are a great improvement. There were items on Wikidata that had images as inappropriate as this one (in Pulianas).

In any case, evaluations apart from my work, I am not "chasing" any user. Lopezsuarez (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Noham54000

— Ætoms (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. --Yann (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

User:CodySturgis

User: CodySturgis (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Looks like someone uploading attack images trying to make them searchable under the subject's name. (File:Cody sturgis 24.jpg has the text "This isn’t going away from google images for a while I’d say, Cody’s big debut he’s google image searchable [...] and he doesn’t look too happy about it. Props to Wikipedia commons, having taken a few months to do so.") --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Warned and deleted his files. If he does it again will merit a block Gbawden (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The likelihood that these photos were intended to humiliate a named person doesn't merit a block? --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done On reflection I have blocked this user as they seem to want to discredit commons with their posts and the images could be harassment Gbawden (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Sonocentric uploaded copyrighted files

Sonocentric uploaded some copyrighted files in late December 2021. --I dream of horses (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done I have deleted the files. Thank you for reporting. Jianhui67 T★C 00:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Aespablackmamba04

Uploading other people's photos found online as public domain, after a final warning. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by Yann for a month Gbawden (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Copy right violation by Mohsenhejry

All of uploads of this user which add to commons is not own work of this users except three first,

and All taken from google image or book selling websites, like «ketanfroosh.com»

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted, user warned. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Leonel Sohns

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not have uploaded recently such things, I did it in 2020. Leonel Sohns 12:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@Leonel Sohns: That's irrelevant. When will you finish attributing the sources of your previous uploads? For instance, what was the source of File:Ballen en Alianza Petrolera.jpg, uploaded as own work just three days ago? Was it actually Alianza Petrolera Fútbol Club?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
One file deleted for attack/harrassment. --Yann (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks! The user continues "making major changes to templates" without consensus, despite a warning.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @Minorax too.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Anonymxx00

User persistently uploading (6 times in total) copyrighted images and claiming it as own work and also licensed under CC 4.0. — Paper9oll 09:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. --Yann (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Yann Last warning didn't work, user continue to upload copyright violation and this time claiming as licensed under CC 3.0 as seen with File:Kim Hyeon-soo.jpg, File:Kim Seon-ho in 2020.jpg, and File:Jo Han-chul.jpg, all of which are ripped from news articles on Naver News. — Paper9oll 06:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. --Yann (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks you — Paper9oll 09:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Paper9oll: You are required to notify users you report here per the above.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

User:GabrielDorneles

GabrielDorneles (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) were blocked back in December for keep uploading copyvios after a final warning. They returned from their block, and they keep uploading images that are copyvios or whose copyright status is questionable. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 12:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks. All uploads have a wrong license. More than 1,000 files need to be checked. --Yann (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@Kacamata: You are required to notify users you report here per the above.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Jeff G. I know. I just completely forgot about it. I apologize for that. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 15:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Copy right violation by Arianahvaz

95 percent of uploads of this user which add to commons are copy right violations

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Cleaned-up and warned. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Modern Sciences: You are required to notify users you report here per the above.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Ellenjackson21

Account being used only for spam, a lot of "Best [blank] in [Indian city].jpg" files intermittently since last August. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury: ✓ Done, indeffed thanks to Gbawden! Note, you are required to notify users you report here per the above.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Alright. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Dfkdkdjtywrh

Uploading celebrity Instagram photos with garbled filenames, shortly after coming out of a three-day block for same. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This is also a COM:IU violation. @Lord Belbury: I notified the user, as you are required to above.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Lets see if they get the message Gbawden (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Gbawden: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Luhia

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

Thanks & ✓ Done Herby talk thyme 16:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

User:ARISABADIANTO

ARISABADIANTO is uploading lots of photographs (which I'm not sure are within scope, but that's beside the point). With each upload, the user makes a structured data claim of depicts (P180): no value. This is obviously incorrect: all of the photographs are of people, and even if something was blank, the correct statement would still be depicts (P180): ‎nothing (Q154242), intentionally blank page (Q441698), or the like. I have asked this user to stop three times on the user's talk page, but the incorrect statements continue. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. User is warned, all contributions deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thank you. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Palanja1198 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

This recent user uploads many images that seems from copyrighted sources, such as Amazon, that I have flagged. The others are cartoon-like and seems website captures. Could an administrator have a look, warn the user of the licensing rules and deleted any other copyrighted uploads. Pierre cb (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user. Taivo (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

MITA PAL

MITA PAL (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

✓ Done. The user is blocked for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The real jdx

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 Comment No decision from my part; just want to point out that their edits are okay, as of now there is no trolling or the like, and there (AFAIK) never was consensus that jdx would be permanently unwelcome as person, nor a successful ban proposal, never mind a WMF Office ban. Regards --A.Savin 16:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
So, either evading a block, or impersonating a blocked user are both ok now? How far will admins stretch the rules and circle the wagons for one of "teh regulars" who deliberately disrupted the project? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 Comment That is too bad. My opinion is that this is not Wikipedia, which seems to intentionally drive editors away, like RexxS‎, and as A.Savin says there never was a consensus that jdx was permanently unwelcome because of one comment made during a brouhaha. Krok6kola (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
It's deeply insulting to Rexxs to compare him to Jdx in this manner. Please don't drag his name through the mud to score points against EN.WP, that kind of crap is not helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

users screwing around, trolling the help desk, clearly not here to contribute postiviely

These three accounts seem to have been created for the sole purpose of jabbering about nonsense. It seems clear they (if it isn't just one person) think this is all terribly funny, when in fact it's just stupid. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Clearly NOTHERE, but a CU block would be better. Could you create a CU request? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jawico666. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Yann, While looking for diffs to strnghten the CU case I ran across this one [38] which I think suggests this may be Jawico666, whom you previously blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
garbage
I do admit, they are stupid but me? I'm smarter than them, those people are trying to get me. I avoid them, I have no involvement with them but, if I did it would be funnier. ER6876976778 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
But, I want to keep my reputation they have nothing to lose, I do I have things to lose. ER6876976778 (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I could've killed them for fun but again, I have things to lose, not to gain. ER6876976778 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I mean that's a threat but okay? Jonathon Josh Jane (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Well actually, I'm funnier than you, you are pretty not funny because like I practiced making people laugh, you didn't. Jonathon Josh Jane (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. All the sockpuppet farm is blocked per checkuser investigation. Taivo (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Jissmon76

Jissmon76 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Repeated uploads of copyright violations after a warning. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week and now I will delete some his/her copyvios. Taivo (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Geagea

User Geagea is an admin and used (abused?) the file mover right to rename almost 24,000 files in 24 hours and the day after about 2,500, only to place a left bracket " ( " on files. They say: the right side must be done another time (???), and it is their own files, crit. 1, while crit. 4 is used. Some sort of uploading problem. That doesn't matter, renaming is not a playing tool. See the discussion here: [39] and here on Village pump. That it's not possible to revoke the rename rights for an admin, I doubt. It's possible to block a single page for a user without the talk page, there is a lot possible. I don't want to get User:Geagea be desysoped (It's possibly a very good sysop), but he must be stopped doing this, i.m.o. - In no way is a rename by adding only brackets (and here only the left ones) for 25k files justified in any way. Such harmonization is a waste of resources. (partly copied). This an example (one of the 25k ): [40]. Thanks and Greetings, Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes that is disappointing from Geagea; no matter who is the uploader, as it's clear anyhow that both name patterns are meaningless and that one with non-closed brackets even more meaningless than that one without brackets. It's definitely correct that the filemover flag is included in the admin flag and cannot be revoked separately. If it could, I would not have hesitated to do. Such a mass action is definitely not what the file mover right is for. Regards --A.Savin 18:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm working with the National Library of Israel. The release 50k files under CC-BY-4.0 license. I uploaded part with the Pattypan tool, but the tol is broken for now. So I contact to user Matanya and bring to him the files and Exel file and he uploded the rest for me. the original structer of file name was File:meaningful name (file id).jpg but the files uploaded by Matanya uploaded without '(' ')'. So in order to harmonize with the rest of the files and to make more exam to check if all the files uploaded I need to rename the files. first step was replacing in the category: " 997" to " (997" and the next step should be: "1.jpg" to "1).jpg". It will fix all the files. Nothing her is meaningless. I explained in the willage pump.
Much efforts made by the National Library of Israel and by me to upload these files. Already with categories in the first upload. If the problem in Pattypan tool this rename does not needed from the first place. -- Geagea (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Why didn't you rename them with both brackets at the same time? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I used Mass Rename. don't think that this option possible. -- Geagea (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Perihelion's one? Use a regex? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Mass Rename Gadget. -- Geagea (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Mass-renaming with regex is something that people at COM:VPT, including bot operators, can offer. 50000 renames just to add two brackets is absolutely one of the craziest things on the whole Wikimedia and thus well deserve a en:WP:TROUT... Unfortunately we don't have a village stock yet. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 02:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it might be better idea to me to ask the rename at COM:VPT. But for now, NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh and A.Savin, please advise, what would be the way to handle this. -- Geagea (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Were I you, I would replace (. ?) (\d )(\.\w{3,4}) with $1 ($2)$3 (I know nothing about the files, so this is merely an informative and theoretical answer). 24000 is a really big number; you should check them manually after every 500 renames or so. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 10:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Since you've already add a left bracket, (. ?) \((\d )(\.\w{3,4}) → $1 $2)$3 would be sufficient. Again, this may not be a good choice practically. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 10:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Well I have checked the results for the first rename and they are ok. Im not sure about the code. it shoul be "1.jpg" to "1).jpg" because the part of the files I have uploaded already have "1).jpg" and 14 files have "(cropped).jpg". All the file id's ended with "1". -- Geagea (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
1 and (cropped) can be included as well: (. ?) \((\d 1)((?: \(cropped\))?\.\w{3,4}) → $1 $2)$3. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 12:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
...even though that 1 is unnecessary. Removing it would make no difference. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 12:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
the "1" is necessary. I don't want to include the files already have ").jpg" (including "(cropped).jpg") just the file names ended with "1.jpg". -- Geagea (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Technically speaking, this regex, with or without that 1, will not "catch" files that already have ").ext", excluding "(cropped).ext". NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 16:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Aaalllvvviii

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

Repeated uploads of copyrighted images after a final warning. Johnj1995 (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week and will delete the last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Marium Alberto

User Marium Alberto has cropped several pictures, changing significantly their compositions, without creating a new file when using Cropbot. I have reverted a couple of such changes, only to be reverted shortly by Marium Alberto. I have explained to him in his talk page, in Spanish, firstly asking him to revert his rollbacks (which is, by itself, a tedious task), and telling them it is inappropriate per COM:OW to overwrite existing files by making substantial changes, for the aforementioned reasons. I urge an admin or whoever is up for it, to revert all of Marium's restorations, asking him once again to reupload these croppings separately, instead of replacing the original files. --Bedivere (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bedivere: I notified the user, as you are required to above.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I forgot to do so. The user provided a somewhat strange response to my message, disregarding completely the COM:OW criteria. --Bedivere (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Marium Alberto has been told to upload separatedly instead of overwriting by:
User:Yann (22 nov 2021)
User:Macucal (11 dec 2021)
User:Strakhov (28 dic 2021)
User:Macucal (5 ene 2022)
User:Bedivere (19 ene 2022)
Strakhov (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore, as recently as 25 January, he has cropped other images. As pointed above by Strakhov (thanks for that) this user has been repeatedly told not to overwrite files and has continued despite everything, deliberately ignoring users. Such behavior needs to be stopped. Bedivere (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
This user has caused a big mess, please see my reverts on my contributions page. They need to be stopped. I urge admins to take action. Bedivere (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
It is an incredibly tedious task. I got enough at some point. Here is the continuing point if anyone wants to do it. --Bedivere (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks Yann, much appreciated. I have reverted all of his croppings. Just for the record, he has left an angry talk page message for me in the Spanish Wikipedia. Nothing new; just found it funny he shouted I did not respect others' work, yet he was the one replacing original works with his cropped versions, still giving illegitimate reasons to justify such changes [41]. --Bedivere (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Gilas Pilipinas GT500

This looks like another sockpuppet of User:Yuiyui2001, uploading higher resolution versions of past socks' images, and reverting images to earlier versions. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Comment The user is indefinitely blocked per checkuser investigation, but I did not revert anything. If you want to protect some files from further uploads, please let us know. Taivo (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Given that some of this user's uploads are being flagged as outright hoaxes (Commons:Deletion requests/File:TV Patrol Northern Luzon (Baguio, 2022).png), deleting them all may be a good idea, but I don't personally have any knowledge in the area of Philippine TV shows and police departments. I'll ping User:SeanJ 2007 here as the user who requested deletion of the claimed hoaxes. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Lord Belbury: You may delete those because it is really a hoax. Those images were edited because the program ended last August 28, 2020, and the image title shows a 2022 version that is not even already airing. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Any opinion on the police logos? It looks like the user also has a history of uploading incorrect or hoax maps of the Philippines. Might be naive to assume that all the police badges are probably fine. Lord Belbury (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Lord Belbury: That image you mentioned was deleted last August 13, 2020. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Sure, I was linking to the deletion discussion to show that the user is a problem (the nominator asks "is there a way to block this user who keeps on uploading falsehoods such as this?"). Do you think we should delete the police badges as well, on the grounds that they may also be inaccurate? Lord Belbury (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Lord Belbury: Yes. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I've started discussions to do so at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Historical of Philippine National Police and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nissan2021. Lord Belbury (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

user:Зайцев Руслан Викторович: PoV pushing

The user POV-pushes that Kievan Rus is actually Russia (1, 2) and systematically tries to replace "Kievan Rus" with "Rus" and "Rus" to "Russian" in filenames (see history of the files File:Карта Киевской Руси.jpg, File:Киевская Русь.jpg, File:Historical map of the Rus, 1054-1240.gif). Sneeuwschaap (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Slavonic Роусь Rusĭ, or Slavonic роусьскаѧ землѧ, romanized: rusĭskaę zemlę, "Rus' land" Зайцев Руслан Викторович (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
One more instance will result in a block. Commons is not a Russian government propaganda outlet.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Ymblanter, the same actions with the same file are continued by user:Semenov.m7: 1, 2. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Completely different issues should not be reduced to one claim here. Consensus should be sought on the file talk pages.--Semenov.m7 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Asrtyon

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

Only engaged in uploading copyright images from social media, book covers and news websites. Run n Fly (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user (he was not warned), but now I will delete a lot of his uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Taivo: The used has again uploaded the deletd files with different name like File:Charanjit Singh.jpg, File:Jaleel.jpg, File:AjmalAssam.jpg and File:Bhagwat Mann AAP.jpgthat violates copyright after last warning. Please block him. Run n Fly (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

User:GabrielDorneles

On January 14, 2022, I opened a thread here about GabrielDorneles (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information). As a result, they were blocked by Yann for "uploading unfree files after warnings" (note that this user has already a previous block for the same reason). Very well, today they returned from the block resuming their same behavior, uploading files with questionable copyright or with license or other essential information wrong. Here are some few examples (File:Photograph of Jules Léotard 5.jpg, File:Ernest Cadine Nude 03.jpg, File:Ernest Cadine Nude 01.jpg), but there are so many files that I don't even know what to do. Mark and/or delete/fix them all would be very laborious. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 22:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Sigh. Already two blocks without any acknowledgement about the issue, so indef. this time. This is a pity, as files uploaded are useful, but there are already 1,000 files to correct. Yann (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. This is a case where the possibility of blocking uploading only would be useful. Yann (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Tried with my alt, a block in File namespace will not allow the user to upload. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
A blocking uploading only would be good, because would only him to clean his mess. Because we are short on volunteers and who will review and fix over 1000? The point is that they don't seem to completely understand what they're done wrong. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 14:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
A blocking of File namesapce only wouldn't work, as we want him to be able to edit the File namespace. Yann (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team was working on action partial blocks (see phab:T6995, phab:T242541, phab:T280531) but it looks like it's been stalled since May 2021. We could reimplement the same thing with a user group (a la phab:T227618) but it's probably not worth doing if the partial blocks feature will be finished any time soon. Unfortunately AHT got pulled away to work on the Board election, then IP masking, so I don't know when we'll ever see it. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Enciclopedia1993

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note that the 'final warning' was issued in 2018, and it appeared to relate to files copied from elsewhere. In contrast, several of the recent problematic files are photographs that appear to have been taken by the uploader but may show modern artworks, and would be unacceptable derivative works . These deletion nominations are typically based on an assessment of the age of the depicted item based on its artistic style, and do not indicate bad faith by the uploader. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Civility

Wojsław Brożyna (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

User:Amirhosseinaghayarifar

✓ Blocked for 2 weeks. --- FitIndia Talk ✉ 22:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Useless splits in categories about Slavic paganism

Hello, I have a problem with user Лобачев Владимир (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . He is trying to force POV-based split in categories associated with Slavic paganism, eg. Category:Zhrets - he has maked Category:Rodnover zhrets and continually moving here all images from original category, because of "mixing history with modernity", while in Zhrets category are only modern photos and all historical illustrations are kept in concensually created Category:Zhrets in art. Another example of forcing POV is when he added category "Rodnovery" (associated with modern polytheist reconstruction religious movement) in categories and files associated with Ynglism (slavic-inspired neopagan religion). I strongly suggest to take a look at his activity, because I can't see a goodwill in such edits and it leads to edit war. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Hello, adding Ynglism to Rodnovery is based on reliable sources ([1][2][3]). But what is the basis for adding images to the priests category (Zhrets)? Reliable source please? I consider the accusation of "forcing POV" to be a violation of ethical rules. Please prove your accusation. Such accusations, instead of suggesting good intentions, break the rules and are destructive to the work environment. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "he has maked Category:Rodnover zhrets"? Category:Rodnover zhrets has been created by Gandvik, not by Лобачев Владимир.
"and it leads to edit war"? I also see edit war by Wojsław Brożyna (see files in Category:Zhrets).
@Wojsław Brożyna: , after your edits on the page Category:Rodnover zhrets is "seecat|Zhrets". You claim that "Rodnover zhrets" and "Zhrets" are the same thing? -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
My mistake with creation of category, sorry. War has it to itself that there are at least two sides, so I don't understand your remark. Inclusion of Ynglism into Rodnovery was criticised in other sources[4], so this is at best under debate. Rodnover zhrets are kind of zhrets, but it's dominant meaning as long, as ancient zhrets are dead and there is no non-Rodnover zhrets. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Are you joking? It's not "Slavic synonym for a pagan priest". There is no such thing as "Slavic synonym" (because there is no such language as "Slavic"), is kind of theoretical construction, together with "Pagan priest" (bcs there is no such religion as "Paganism"). Zhrets is a priest in Slavic paganism. No one makes categories like Category:Żerca, Category:Žrec or Category:Жрец, so I don't understand where you find "categories for each language"? "Zhrets" is an English word. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Is Milan Petrović a reliable source? look: «the very name for Orthodox Christianity sr. православље is created during reforms of Patriarch of Moscow Nikon, between 1652. and 1654. Before that, Orthodox Christianitywas know as sr. правоверје, so there are no written documents prior to second half of XVII century in which православљеis mentioned» - That is, the well-known idea of Ynglists about the invention of the word Orthodoxy by Patriarch Nikon is being broadcast. Информациони центар „Свевлад“ is apparently a Rodnoverie association. Here is what is said in English: «Although their understanding of the past is typically rooted in spiritual conviction rather than in arguments that would be acceptable within the academia, many Rodnovers seek to promote their beliefs about the past among academics.[155] For instance, in 2002 Serbian Rodnovers established Svevlad, a research group devoted to historical Slavic religion which simulated academic discourse but was "highly selective, unsystematic, and distorted" in its examination of the evidence.[166] In several Slavic countries, many archaeologists and historians have been hesitant about giving credence to Rodnover interpretations of the past.[167] In turn, Rodnovers have accused academics of being part of a conspiracy to conceal the truth about the past.[168]».
Milan Petrović is not a reliable source, he is an affiliated source (closely associated with the subject).
Zhrets is an English word???? Reliable source please? -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Zhrets can be not only Rodnovery. Categorization is not correct.
I also ask you not to accuse other persons (who have different opinions) of "forcing POV". Let's have a constructive dialogue. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Source: Волхвы (Volkhvs) // Great Russian Encyclopedia:
Ru: Волхвы — это служители дохристианских языческих культов у славян.
En: Volkhv is a minister of a pre-Christian pagan cult among the Slavs.
Source: Жрец // Great Dictionary of Russian language
Ru: Жрец — языческий священнослужитель.
En: Zhrets is a pagan priest. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Those examples are not an argument. It's OR and not even correct OR. You are confused by that zhrets means priest in Russian, but such situation do not take place in other Slavic languages. For example, in Polish Russian word Жрец is translated in two ways: as kapłan in the sense of priest and as żerca in the sense of... zhrets :) In addition, there is split in historical sources: zhrets are known from Western Slavdom (Polabian Slavs) and volkhvs are known from Eastern Slavdom (Rus'). We have no proof that either was higher category or even that they were present at the same time in the same communities. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
No, I don't need your opinion. Need reliable sources. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Reliable sources to what? Say it clear instead of trot it out. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
What exactly? See above. Do I have to repeat the whole discussion every time? For example, give a quote that volkhvs were not zhrets, instead of trot it out. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
No, I won't give you proove that I'm not an elephant. That whats need a proove is that volkhvs were zhrets – and modern Russian dictionary isn't it. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
is that volkhvs were zhrets?
" волхв. 1. Служитель языческого культа; жрец (на Руси IX - XIII вв.). 2. Прорицатель, мудрец, чародей, колдун"[5]--Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you see the link now? -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
" Волхвы, у восточных славян жрецы, служители языческого культа."[6] --Nikolay Omonov (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This edit contradicts the reliable sources, for example (ru:Волхвы):
"Волхвы́ — в древнерусской традиции служители дохристианских языческих культов[1]…"
Translation this text in English:
" Volkhvs, in the Old Rus' tradition, were priests of pre-Christian pagan cults…[7]. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
But in some groups of Rodnovery, the situation seems to be different (en:Volkhv#In modern Slavic priesthood):
"Volkhvs are the higher rank of the sacerdotal hierarchy, the lesser order being that of the zhrets.[8] The latter are not necessarily shamans, and their function is merely to hold sacrifices (the word zhrets literally means "sacrificer", from Proto-Slavic *žьrti, and is cognate of Slavic words for "offering").[9]"
This edit contradicts the reliable source – it is not true. You are doing kind of OR without taking into account that one word can had many meanings and by moving only in Russian context. Russian Жрец combines zhrets as type of Slavic priets (different from volhkv) and priest (and both zhrets and volkhv are priest, but of two different types!). For exaples, in reliable source ;) Polish scholar of religion Aleksander Bruckner points that volkhvs were (let's differentiate history from modernity when we really need it) more primitive priesthood than Western zhretses. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Bruckner writes that volkhvs were more primitive priesthood than Western zhretses, isn't it? — than Western zhretses, not than zhretses. He didn't write '"volkhvs were more primitive priesthood than zhretses. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Next attempt to distort the facts. No, Bruckner didn't use adjective Western, it's my addiction to emphasize that we don't know Medieval zhrets from East as we don't know Medieval volkhvs from West. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
No no. Since you have already distorted the sources, I ask you to give a quote, but not a distorted retelling. And whether this author is the most reliable or the only one on the topic. apparently not. Why exactly should we use it? If there are discrepancies in the sources, you may to discuss this, but not edit the categories without arguments. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
You confused scientifing way of prooving. We don't need source to proove separation of two geographically and linguistically divided phenomenons – they are separated per se as long, as you didn't find the proove of their connection. Modern Russian dictionary can't be such proove in matter of Medieval priesthood. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
We don't need source to proove separation of two geographically and linguistically divided phenomenons -- No, we need, because according to reliable sources it is not two geographically and linguistically divided phenomenons. Variations of word zhrets are in many Slavic languages.
as you didn't find the proove of their connection - See, I gave two reliable sources.
Modern Russian dictionary can't be such proove in matter of Medieval priesthood -- What did you mean? Any modern Russian dictionary? In your opinion, modern academic dictionaries are not reliable sources? Or did I misunderstand you? -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@Wojsław Brożyna: , please give some reliable source for this categorization. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
You're already cite some (Gieysztor is about Medieval religion). Can you stop participate in discussion about topic that you don't understand? Thanks --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't see it in Gieysztor.
@Wojsław Brożyna: "Can you stop participate in discussion about topic that you don't understand?" — Do you know the rules about ethical behavior or are you ignoring them? Maybe I should prove my competence (that I have a historical education and I am the main author of the Slavic neo-paganism article in Russian Wikipedia and a large number of articles on ancient Slavic paganism). No, I don't have to do this. Aren't the rules forbidding you from writing such things? And can you stop making edits yourself in complete opposition to reliable sources? -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I have real problems with user Wojsław Brożyna (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  who communicates in a highly unethical way. I ask the administrators to protect me and other users from this behavior. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I have problem with you. Nikolay Omonov (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  asking me about something and when I try to reply, he takes out of context parts of text to make an appearance of corectness of his statements, here in this discussion he trying to transfer the blame of edit war on me. At the time, his substantive contribution is this discussion is poorly. Personally I perceive it as an attempt to provoke, what is in my opinion highly likely as we talking about topic that is condemned by Russian Orthodox Church and Nikolai's profile on Russian Wikipedia is decorated in devotional way: ru:Участник:Nikolay Omonov. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wojsław Brożyna: Don't try to mislead others. takes out of context - in the link, it is clear that the user is trying to distort the content of the sources. The user was initially not set up for a positive discussion and began by blaming the other for forcing POV. At the same time, one can be seen that the user did not provide a single reliable source and is constantly trying to distort the data provided by other users.

  • highly likely as we talking about topic that is condemned by Russian Orthodox Church and Nikolai's profile on Russian Wikipedia is decorated in devotional way - — the user continues to grossly violate ethical rules. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't try to mislead others. – where I try to do so?
it is clear that the user is trying to distort the content of the sources – how?
user [...] began by blaming the other for forcing POV – it's not true, this discussion started in edits description and I started with positive argument.
one can be seen that the user did not provide a single reliable source – I've always been convinced that sources are needed to proove something extraordinary, not to maintain starting point.
The user was initially not set up for a positive discussion [...] is constantly trying to distort the data provided by other users – but I have the same impression about you.
the user continues to grossly violate ethical rules. – presenting my opinion violates ethical rules? You confused Wikimedia with Year 1984. Stop performing like it would be right impression if it breaks something for you. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't try to mislead others. – where I try to do so? - it is clear that the user is trying to distort the content of the sources – how? -- you wrote about me takes out of context. While you did not provide confirmation of this either on that page or here. On that page, you referred to a text where your statement is not, and something completely different is written.
This is lie. Is it on this page and even I cite that part you skipped and yes, you taked out of context part of previous paragraph. And now you are still going on this way and insolently says that I am distort something! --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Now you also accuse me of lying? Quotes please from these articles. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I've always been convinced that sources are needed to proove something extraordinary, not to maintain starting point. -- Is this your starting point? It contradicts reliable sources.
this discussion started in edits description and I started with positive argument -- it's not true, I wrote about this discussion.
So if you wrote about this discussion, do not merge this with statement that "it's not true", because it is - the start isn't located in this discussion. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
but I have the same impression about you -- but you have no reason to. I urged you to behave ethically, but received attacks from you.
No, you are asking me in absurd way like "reliable source for zhrets is English please" (xD), "reliable source for modern Slavic paganism is Slavic paganism" (xDD) and so on. I don't want to your sophistical game, we are on encyclopedia, not social media forum. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
We are on encyclopedia, not social media forum. Thus give reliable source and stop your sophistical game. Your statements are contradicted by reliable sources. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Stop performing like it would be right impression if it breaks something for you. please.
presenting my opinion violates ethical rules? -- For example, Can you stop participate in discussion about topic that you don't understand? Nikolay Omonov (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Stop try to mislead others, this statement refers to specific point of discussion, when you suggest that "Personally I perceive it as an attempt to provoke, what is in my opinion highly likely as we talking about topic that is condemned by Russian Orthodox Church and Nikolai's profile on Russian Wikipedia is decorated in devotional way: ru:Участник:Nikolay Omonov." --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you divide users by religion? The criterion for contribution is not reliable sources, but religious identity? Don't worry, you're wrong about my religious identity. I do not have the right to design my page the way I want and how it suits my scientific interests? Is this a personal ban from you? Nikolay Omonov (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
No, it isn't, this statement did't refer to this specific point. You wrote "presenting my opinion violates ethical rules?" I wrote for example.... But another example is this specific point too. Of course, your reference to religion is your personal opinion, as well as it is your personal attack on me.
And even more unethical action is to accuse me of provocation. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
And one more question: what do smiles mean in your text? -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
No, it isn't. When you refers to my statement that obviously was retelling and call it distorted, is an attempt to show it as misleading and thus me as less valuable participant of discussion, while I just paraphrased something. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
No, it isn't. I don't know your motives. Here you are accusing me without any reason. On that page, you referred to a text where your statement is not, and something completely different is written Nikolay Omonov (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
It's not true that I accused you without reason - the reason is that you completely ignore second paragraph, where my statement was confirmed. there I cite it. Stop lying please. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Really?? You wrote this already after blaming me. Interesting maneuver. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I asked you a reliable source that Rodnovery is true Slavic paganism. You gave a link to an article where this is not. I pointed it out, and you accused me of taking something out of context. This, as well as the accusation of promoting a personal and religious point of view, as well as the accusation of lack of qualification - all this is an attack on me, an attempt to show me as less valuable participant of discussion. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
You gave a link to an article where this is not - you lie, it is in this article. I cite it. I pointed it out - no, you just copy selected part about something other. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
No... it's not there. Gaidukov has described "Slavic Neopaganism" as a term pertaining to "all quasi-religious, political, ideological and philosophical systems which are based on the reconstruction and construction of pre-Christian Slavic traditions". -- based on the reconstruction. He wrote that this is true Slavic paganism? No. Ivakhiv has defined Rodnovery as a movement which "harkens back to the pre-Christian beliefs and practices of ancient Slavic peoples" -- just harkens back to. while according to... Shnirelman, Rodnovers present themselves as "followers of some genuine pre-Christian Slavic, Russian or Slavic-Aryan Paganism" -- present themselves. No need for philosophical conclusions, like if "harkens back to" than it is true. Give reliable source. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
In this page you gave link to this article en:Slavic Native Faith#Overview. "no, you just copy selected part about something other" -- really?? I copy fist part of your link. And I wrote I didn't see is Slavic paganism. please give a quote and source. Then you are accusing me in taking out of context. "I cite it" -- You cited it on January 30th. This was much later than accusing me of taking things out of context. Why are you doing these maneuvers? And what's more, your statement is not in your quote. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
In the case of Category:Rodnover zhrets and Category:Ynglism – I agree and already stopped. Sorry for accusation of forcing POV. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
If you already stopped, then can I revert Category:Rodnover zhrets to a version that matches reliable sources? Nikolay Omonov (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑  Aitamurto K (2007). Russian Rodnoverie: Negotiating Individual Traditionalism. The 2007 International Conference. Globalization, Immigration, and Change in Religious Movements. June 7—9, 2007. Bordeaux, France. CESNUR.
  2. ↑ Шнирельман В. А. Русское родноверие : неоязычество и национализм в современной России. — М.: Библейско-богословский институт святого апостола Андрея, 2012. — xiv 302 с. — ISBN 978-5-89647-291-9
  3. ↑ Гайдуков A. B. Новое язычество, неоязычество, родноверие : проблема терминологии // Язычество в современной России : опыт междисциплинарного исследования / под ред.  Р. В. Шиженского. — Нижний Новгород: Мининский университет, Типография Поволжье, 2016. — С. 24—46.
  4. ↑ Milan Petrović. Qualification of Slavic Rodnovery in scientific literature – neopaganism or ethnic religion.
  5. ↑ Словарь Ефремовой
  6. ↑ С. С. Аверинцев. Волхвы // Мифы народов мира
  7. ↑ Волхвы (Volkhvs) / С. С. Аверинцев // Great Russian Encyclopedia
  8. ↑ Pilkington, Hilary; Popov, Anton (2009). "Understanding Neo-paganism in Russia: Religion? Ideology? Philosophy? Fantasy?". In George McKay (ed.). Subcultures and New Religious Movements in Russia and East-Central Europe. Peter Lang. pp. 253–304. ISBN 9783039119219.
  9. ↑ Gieysztor, Aleksander (2006) Mitologia Słowian, Warsaw: Warsaw University Press ISBN: 832350234X. p. 210; Urbańczyk, Stanisław (1968) Szkice z dziejów języka polskiego, Warsaw: Polish Scientific Publishers PWN ISBN: 832350234X. , p. 272, note 11.

User:Ахмадизов

Ахмадизов (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continues copyvio uploading after warnings. --Xunks (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Warning given - lets see if their behaviour changes Gbawden (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Öhmchenisttoll

User:Öhmchenisttoll uploaded a bunch of spam images (all flagged for speedy deletion). If the user continues to upload spam images it should be considered to block him --Hangman'sDeath (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Already warned, all files deleted. Should be blocked if uploading again. Yann (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Redqueenad

Uploading copyrighted social media photos after a final warning. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Carlasantoslima1985

Looks like a lot of unhelpful uploads and edits. Please take a look. Thanks. Skmp (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. I mass deleted all her uploads as out of scope and warned her. Taivo (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

(It seems like the user continues to make unhelpful edits). Skmp (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

User:XwX OwO

After receiving copyvio warning, this user didn't stop posting the same copyvio photo (File:高田 里穂.jpg) and so on. --Netora (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Of concerns is the fake flickrreview tag they were adding to files Gbawden (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

2.178.62.53

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see any edit by this IP. Did I miss anything? Yann (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Withdrawn, sorry, I guess Stang was extrapolating based on this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this is based on the replacement of image on wikidata, just for a better judgement on the CU side. Stang★ 14:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

91.193.176.2

91.193.176.2 (talk · contribs) - interferes deletion requests, states false license review templates. --Drakosh (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Лаура Джугелия.jpg. The YouTube link they posted to support a free licence appears to be to unrelated content. Delete and block. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I would also question Frlfekrtng (talk · contribs)'s involvement in this, and possible a checkuser to clarify whether there is any socking involved. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I blocked the IP and suspect sockpuppetry, but I'm not a checkuser. Taivo (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done. As checkusers don't do such checks, I blocked Frlfekrtng for a week as well for vandalism. Taivo (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Nstts45

Multiple out-of-scope images. Skmp (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned, DR created. Yann (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

User:NiziULOVE

This user posted copyvio photos repeatedly. User:Elcobbola blocked this user for a week. After releasing from the block, this user restarted to post copyvio photos. --Netora (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month Gbawden (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Enekorga

Perdón por reportar aquí en español, pero necesito ayuda de los admins hispanohablantes, @Platonides: @Strakhov: , el usuario está subiendo fotos de una fuente que usa licencias ND pero son un montón y algunas válidas, hay que revisar una por una. La fuente ND es el gobierno de Navarra (https://www.navarra.es/home_es/Temas/Turismo ocio y cultura/Archivos/Programas/Archivo Abierto/Documentos/Vista-aerea-del-nucleo-urbano-de-Tabar_t3nbSY7qNwaAGN2jxs9wrQ), gracias de antemano!! Ezarateesteban 21:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for reporting here in Spanish, but I need help from the Spanish-speaking admins, @Platonides: @Strakhov: , the user is uploading photos from a source that uses ND licenses but they are a lot and some are valid, you have to check one by one. The ND source is the government of Navarra (https://www.navarra.es/home_es/Temas/Turismo ocio y cultura/Archivos/Programas/Archivo Abierto/Documentos/Vista-aerea-del-nucleo-urbano-de-Tabar_t3nbSY7qNwaAGN2jxs9wrQ), thanks in advance!!
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@Jmabel: FYI. I am checking this user's uploads and will delete where applicable with a templated warning to their talk page. You guys might also want to add an explanation in Spanish here. And thank you Enegorga for mentioning this. De728631 (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Jmabel: para tu información Estoy revisando las cargas de este usuario y las eliminaré cuando corresponda con una advertencia en plantilla en su página de discusión. Es posible que también quieran agregar una explicación en español aquí. Y gracias Enegorga por mencionar esto.
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Jeff G.: I believe it is User:Ezarate you want to thank. Enekorga is the one with the problem uploads. - Jmabel ! talk 15:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment with regard to "You guys might also want to add an explanation in Spanish here": Hola, Enekorga. Parece que has subido fotos con una licencia incompatible con Wikimedia Commons (en concreto fotografías publicadas bajo una licencia Creative Commons que no permite usos comerciales y que no permite obras derivadas) y por tanto parece que serán, o que han sido, borradas. Básicamente el contenido subido a Commons debe permitir de forma general el reuso comercial del material y la realización de obras derivadas a partir de él, por lo que no deberías subir material cuya licencia no permita estas circunstancias. Un saludo. Strakhov (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello Enekorga. It appears that you have uploaded photos under a license that is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons (specifically photos released under a Creative Commons license that does not allow commercial uses and does not allow derivative works) and therefore it appears that they will be, or have been, removed. Basically, the content uploaded to Commons must generally allow the commercial reuse of the material and the creation of derivative works from it, so you should not upload material whose license does not allow these circumstances. All the best.
translator: Google Translate via  Contributers2020Talk to me here 17:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@Contributers2020: We want a Spanish translation, not in English... Yann (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Wink TV Europe

Wink TV Europe (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (courtesy ping to @Wink TV Europe: )

This editor has been uploading a large number of images, especially corporate logos, claiming they are all their own work. A few examples; File:CNBC 2006 logo.png, File:Al-Jazeera.jpg, File:Disney Channel logo.png. Images that are not blatant copyright violations appear to all be out of scope (File:Mr.Shefket 2022.png, File:Mr.Shefket (cool-1).jpg, File:Bulsatcom Fusion IPTV logo.jpg, File:Directors of Sport7 (logo-2022).png). I recommend mass deletion of all images uploaded by this editor, and perhaps a stern warning against future uploads of copyright violations. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

User:DanielPenfield

Hi, I'm writing here because I've reached a point where I really don't know how to deal with another user. I added Category:Rochester Institute of Technology to Category:Universities and colleges in Rochester, New York, then User:DanielPenfield reverted me. I did it again and was reverted again, so I started a discussion at Category talk:Rochester Institute of Technology#Is RIT in Rochester?. I wrote a brief message asking why it shouldn't be in the category, and he wrote a blow-by-blow breakdown of my "claims", in which he talked about my "ignorance" and said things like "You state that as if you're completely helpless and incapable of creating a more accurate category". I was pretty put off, but still made an effort to assume good faith and not escalate my tone in explaining my disagreement. The response I received was probably the rudest anyone has been to me in my 15 years on Wikimedia. In it, he accused me of gaslighting him (because I asked him to not be hostile), he said I was "patronizingly lecturing" him (you can read my messages for yourself), and he accused of having an ulterior motive. In one of my original edit messages, I had included the note "they [RIT] are recognized as being in Rochester, even if they are not within the legal bounds". I completely dropped this argument on the talk page, but he seems to be ignoring the arguments I'm actually making and says I'm "still clinging to 'they are recognized as being in Rochester, even if they are not within the legal bounds', and I understand that you're trying really hard to make it look like that's not the case."

I really don't know what triggered this sort of response. As far as I know, everything I've described above is the entire extent of my interactions with DanielPenfield (I did alert him to a CfD two years ago, but he didn't respond). I wondered if this was just an unusual occurence, so I took a look at some of his previous talk page discussions. It seems I am not the first person to ask him to be civil, and I found several occasions where he seemed to be excessively hostile with little provocation (User talk:DanielPenfield#Template, User talk:DanielPenfield#Categories by year, User talk:Levdr1lp#Deletion of File:WXXIAMFMTVHeadquarters.JPG). To me this seems like a pattern of behavior that is unacceptable and serves to hurt Commons. I don't know what should be done, but I know that I absolutely do not want to interact with Daniel anymore and will be demotivated from contributing to Commons if I am forced to deal with this kind of vitriol. –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Your claim My response
"Hi, I'm writing here because I've reached a point where I really don't know how to deal with another user." You don't know? You admit above that you've literally taken a significant amount of time to review my entire talk page history and to write up this accusation (that omits and distorts significant details). Sounds like you do know.
"I added Category:Rochester Institute of Technology to Category:Universities and colleges in Rochester, New York, then User:DanielPenfield reverted me." You omitted several important details: My revert summary is "The institute moved to Henrietta, New York in 1968". Your revert of my revert is "the institute was in Rochester before 1968. Commons covers all history, not just the present. also, they are recognized as being in Rochester, even if they are not within the legal bounds". Your revert summary is 100% inconsistent with maintaining a COM:CIVIL interaction. "Rules for me, but apparently not for thee." You seem consistent in omitting/distorting significant details.
"I wrote a brief message asking why it shouldn't be in the category, and he wrote a blow-by-blow breakdown of my "claims", in which he talked about my "ignorance"" Note that the exact quotes are "It's this ignorance that has no business on any Wikimedia-related project." and "Even the section heading for your complaint on this talk page ("Is RIT in Rochester?") reflects this ignorance." You seem consistent in omitting/distorting significant details.
" and said things like "You state that as if you're completely helpless and incapable of creating a more accurate category"." Well, if you were capable of creating a more accurate category, why haven't you done so? Is it really that big of a burden? You were pretty focused on categorizing Category:Rochester Institute of Technology into a misleading category (namely, Category:Universities and colleges in Rochester, New York), even though RIT was already categorized in Category:Universities and colleges in Monroe County, New York. And when presented with the alternative of creating Category:Universities and colleges formerly in Rochester, New York, you found that unacceptable. This behavior is 100% consistent with a "your way or the highway"/"don't defy me, I will get my way and I will destroy you on COM:ANU" attitude.
"In it, he accused me of gaslighting him (because I asked him to not be hostile)" This accusation attributes a falsehood with regard to justification. See the original response: "Now you're going to gaslight me into believing my response was a "personal attack"?. It's as if you were already laying the groundwork for this COM:ANU filing. You seem consistent in omitting/distorting significant details.
"he said I was "patronizingly lecturing" him (you can read my messages for yourself), and he accused of having an ulterior motive." The links are [43], [44], and [45]. They're easy enough to copy--why did you omit them? The pattern is clear: The accuser pretends to have known all along about the 1968 move out of Rochester and simultaneously pretends that somehow I still don't know that despite the fact that that's literally the edit summary from my initial revert. And the "ulterior motive" is "they are recognized as being in Rochester, even if they are not within the legal bounds" which the accuser has never disavowed in writing. Instead of admitting your mistake, you apparently need to engage in this intellectual dishonesty (along with the use of the royal "we") to maintain your "superiority". You use these methods of manipulation and then you wonder why I'm hostile?
"In one of my original edit messages, I had included the note "they [RIT] are recognized as being in Rochester, even if they are not within the legal bounds". I completely dropped this argument on the talk page," You've literally never written that you no longer support this claim. You seem consistent in omitting/distorting significant details.
"but he seems to be ignoring the arguments I'm actually making and says I'm "still clinging to 'they are recognized as being in Rochester, even if they are not within the legal bounds', and I understand that you're trying really hard to make it look like that's not the case."" So in the accusation above, you complain about my "blow-by-blow breakdown", but now you're claiming I'm "ignoring your arguments"? How is that possible if I literally put nearly every one of your claims in one column and my corresponding response in the other?
"I really don't know what triggered this sort of response." Did you review the summary accompanying your revert of my revert (namely, "the institute was in Rochester before 1968. Commons covers all history, not just the present. also, they are recognized as being in Rochester, even if they are not within the legal bounds")? Is that really consistent with COM:CIVIL behavior?
"I wondered if this was just an unusual occurence, so I took a look at some of his previous talk page discussions. It seems I am not the first person to ask him to be civil" The user in question accused me of a copyright violation for a screenshot of the toolbar area of Internet Explorer. If you read Microsoft's usage agreement for Internet Explorer at the time, it literally stated that screenshots of Internet Explorer were free to use. You seem consistent in omitting/distorting significant details.
"I found several occasions where he seemed to be excessively hostile with little provocation (User talk:DanielPenfield#Template, User talk:DanielPenfield#Categories by year, User talk:Levdr1lp#Deletion of File:WXXIAMFMTVHeadquarters.JPG)." In the first case the editor wanted to delete {{NY cities}} because he condescendingly didn't "see the need" for it despite multiple longstanding counterexamples of navigation templates at the same level of government. The second case refers to an unwritten rule that only exists in a an old Village Pump discussion and that four years later nobody has been bothered to record in COM:Categories. The third was a false accusation of copyright violation that was actually honored and then reversed when it was revealed that the accuser had (willfully?) overlooked de minimis, meanwhile the exact logo (on the side of a building at a distance) featured in the accusation was easily found in multiple uploads at full resolution with a simple search. In every case they were accusations founded on complete and utter falsehoods, and yet people believed the accusations and, worse, treated the leveling of those falsehoods as if they were perfectly acceptable behavior. You seem consistent in omitting/distorting significant details.
"To me this seems like a pattern of behavior that is unacceptable and serves to hurt Commons." "Hurt" commons when I point all of the omissions and distortions that people attempt to use to get their own way? Or is it really that I defied you and you like to punish those who defy you? How many other editors have you run off of this project for the "crime" of defiance?
"I don't know what should be done, but I know that I absolutely do not want to interact with Daniel anymore" You absolutely seem to know what you want done. If you truly "do not want to interact with Daniel anymore", what's preventing you from doing just that? I've only ever interacted with you on Category talk:Rochester Institute of Technology and the last interaction was two days ago. You could have left things there, but you deliberately decided to level the accusation above literally two days after our last interaction. You're the one pursuing this, not me.
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It is unfortunate to see a minor discussion about the correct categorization of RIT ending up at this board. The issue here whether RIT in particular or the suburbs belong to Rochester or not has always been confusing to many. DanielPenfield is right that RIT is located in Henrietta, a suburb of Rochester which is outside the city limits of Rochester. RIT and the people in the suburbs of Rochester count themselves to Greater Rochester and use Rochester in their addresses. The official address of RIT is One Lomb Memorial Drive at Rochester, NY 14623. We had already discussions at en:wp (like this one) about whether to include RIT in the article about Rochester, NY, or not. Consensus is not to include the suburbs in Rochester but to refer to the Rochester metropolitan area where appropriate: en:Rochester, New York#Colleges and universities. We should follow suit here at Commons.

IagoQnsi added Category:Rochester Institute of Technology to Category:Universities and colleges in Rochester, New York. This was reverted two hours later by User:DanielPenfield, correctly pointing out in the edit summary that the “institute moved to Henrietta, New York in 1968”. This revert was unfortunately hastily undone by IagoQnsi. It would have been better to follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle instead where a discussion shall be opened immediately after the first revert. Unfortunately, reverts of reverts are likely to raise tensions unnecessarily. This was reverted again by DanielPenfield, unfortunately with a very unkind summary: “rv change based completely on ignorance”. IagoQnsi opened then the discussion at Category talk:Rochester Institute of Technology#Is RIT in Rochester?. DanielPenfield responded next day, unfortunately not without personal remarks like “It's this ignorance that has no business on any Wikimedia-related project”, ”You state that as if you're completely helpless and incapable of creating a more accurate category [..]”, or “Under what twisted logic?”. I do not think that this tabular responses with columns “Your claim” and “My response” are well suited for a conversation which helps to constructively resolve open issues. All this is unnecessary and unpleasant.

But I do not see that anything of this warrants administrative action. You are both editors here in good standing with years of experience who should be able to resolve such questions in a civil manner. Please stay mellow and take care. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_96&oldid=629509248"