Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Note

  • Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

User:Kallerna[edit]

This is to ask for review recent (sysop) actions by Kallerna.

a) I had blocked Karelj for a duration of 3 days for uncivil comments. Latest was this one, which comes as very disrespectful towards the photographer, however Karelj is well known for other disrespectful FPC "reviews" such as this one, for which I already had warned him, which he opted to ignore completely.

b) Several users agreed on obvious incivility of such comments, such as: Aristeas, SHB2000, XRay, Radomianin.

c) Nonetheless, Kallerna came "out of nothing" and unblocked the user -- completely out of process, without seeking any discussion, neither with me nor on Admins' noticeboard, also there wasn't even an unblock request on Karelj's talk page.

d) The unblock comment was "Groundless block [...] Silencing user who do not agree with you?", which I find libelous obviously false and uncivil, as neither did I ever discuss with Karelj in any sort of disagreement, nor did I vote or otherwise comment in the same FPC nomination whatsoever.

e) Similarly poor was their comment on my talk page ("Please do not block users who do not share the same views as you", etc.).

f) Further discussion on my talk page with Kallerna on this matter turned as useless.

g) Therefore, Kallerna's behaviour should be reviewed in terms of: 1) incivility -- due to false claim of myself blocking a user because of contentual disagreement; and 2) obvious violation of Commons:Blocking policy, in particular: "To avoid wheel warring, another administrator should lift a block only if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block".

The sysop Kallerna I'm going to notify on this thread.

Thanks --A.Savin 22:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1 to what A.Savin said. I also find Karelj's refusal to communicate a major red flag – not just for the above but also for "But the image here looks, like from child, who receivd his first photoaparate and learns, how to operate with it". Kallerna should have discussed this beforehand, instead of unilaterally unblocking and making spurious accusations. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not going to get involved here, as I am already part of the discussions about incivility on that nomination page. I just wanted to make people aware that Kallerna is one of only 3 people opposing this FPC nomination (which has more than 20 support votes), so when judging the possibility of a conflict on interest one should consider this fact. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This – thanks for mentioning it, as that too hasn't been mentioned before. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I agree that 1. Karelj's comments are quite rude, if not disrespectful, 2. Kallerna's unblock is out of process. If you don't agree with a block, please discuss it instead wheel warring. Yann (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Yann, thanks for your comments. I have explained my actions in the user talk pages of A.Savin and Karelj. There is also a lot of conversation about the possible rudeness of Karelj in the nom page. I reverted the block due to it being inadequat, as pointed by fellow admistrator Christian Ferrer. —kallerna (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kallerna: Would you also like to explain your possible conflict of interest as mentioned by Kritzolina above? --SHB2000 (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kallerna: I wouldn't have blocked Karelj at this point, but your hastily unblocking is nevertheless an issue. It sends the wrong message. Yann (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you, I should have contacted another administrator here and let someone else revert the block. However, the user had been wrongfully blocked for two days at that point, so I did not want to wait any longer. —kallerna (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A showcase example how not to address a complaint about one's own behaviour. --A.Savin 14:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kallerna, if you snarkily try to dodge attempting my question (or A.Savin's) by Dec 2, I will start a nomination to desysop you. Sysops need to be held accountable to their actions; not answering questions raised towards you about your potential misuse of tools is a red flag and is unsysop-like behaviour. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I would support that. Kallerna is good photographer, but definitely not good for the sysop team. As a (possibly offtopic) side-note, look at their talk page (the QI promotions). They have uploaded masses of images of contemporary buildings in South Korea where there is no FoP. Many have been deleted already. A sysop should have at least a very basic knowledge what to upload on Commons and what not. Kallerna seems not to have this knowledge. And this arrogancy is the final straw. Thanks --A.Savin 13:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kallerna: courtesy ping – 2 days left to answer my/A.Savin's question before I will start a desysop nom. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1 day left, Kallerna. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I've been travelling the last week all over Europe (at the moment at airport) and have not seen these comments. I'm sorry, but I do not know why you have this motivation to de-admin me. All I did was unblocking wrongfully blocked user. You are not a admin, and you are not involved in the matter - I did not have any reason to communicate with you. I'm here to contribute to the project, not to discuss with trolls. —kallerna (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kallerna Are you calling SHB2000 a troll here? Kritzolina (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, that's some serious baseless accusations right there, Kallerna. "I do not know why you have this motivation to de-admin me" – I want Commons to be a project with sysops that has sysops who know how to use their tools properly. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Currently both sides seems to be rather over provocative. You all should cool down and try not to the escalate situation. -- Zache (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be useful to know exactly how I'm provocative, however at least I didn't insult a long-term contributor and Wikivoyage admin a troll. --A.Savin 14:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this case you were from start threatening with consequenses [1], [2]. From that things did go in couple days from mishandled blocking/unblocking to deadmin vote. However, being admin not about competition, but co-operation and i would say that more fruitful course of action would have been just to explain why you gave the block and ask why it was lifted without any threatening. So that there would be understanding between admins why they did what they did. The discussion could have taken so much time that original three days block would have been irrelevant, but it doesn't afaik really matter. If initially blocked user continues bad behaviour there would have been new blocks because that, if not then problem was solved anyway. --Zache (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Silencing user who do not agree with you" is clearly disrespectful, uncivil comment, especially given the fact that it's also false. Kallerna, you still didn't response how come that I'm "silencing users". This block log comment should be hidden at the very least. --A.Savin 13:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could a third admin please hide this comment? Thanks --A.Savin 14:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done I hid the edit summary. Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. --A.Savin 17:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A.Savin, Kritzolina, Yann, and Abzeronow: Since it's December 2 and Kallerna did not respond, I started a desysop nomination which can be found at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kallerna (de-adminship). Apologies in advance for any formatting errors (I'm new to this process). Pinging everyone involved in this discussion. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that one may see the edit summary as insensitive, but might it be worth keeping it public for the duration of the de-adminship discussion be worthwhile so that the log can be seen by participants? @A.Savin and Abzeronow: Would either of you have an objection to this sort of thing? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, temporarily unhiding is no problem. --A.Savin 03:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd have no problem with temporarily unhiding if it is necessary. Abzeronow (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Per request/consent. GMGtalk 01:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have closed the de-admin request as inadmissible per policy. Commons:Administrators/De-adminship states: "Please note this process should only be used for serious offenses in which there seems to be some consensus for removal;". From the above discussion I see nothing that can be called consensus. Personal comment: There should no room for uncivilty, there should be more blocks for uncivilty, and such blocks shall not be removed. Supporting a hostile environment should not be seen as acceptable conduct of anybody, especially not of an admin. --Krd 14:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, Commons really lets sysops get away with such misuse of tools – I thought it was pretty clear from this discussion that Kallerna's behaviour was inappropriate. Oh well... --SHB2000 (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, we can of course accuse Kallerna of lifting the block and ignoring questions on purpose, but we can hardly accuse anyone here on Commons of not having commented in this thread. --A.Savin 04:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I'll admit I severely overreacted when I wrote that comment above. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think A. Savin hit the nail right on the head in the discussion above: «Kallerna is good photographer, but definitely not good for the sysop team.». Well, sure. I mean, Kallerna might also be an excellent driver, a keen model railroader, or a loving spouse — but it doesn’t matter. Being a good photographer is only relevant for Commons in as much as they publish their good photography with a suitable license. It doesn’t follow necessarily that a good photographer would also be a good curator of photographs and other media, let alone a good sysop thereof. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, I think A. Savin's block was harsh but within bounds of policy as Karelj was being disruptive by their behavior of making disrespectful comments. Kallerna's unblock was totally against policy, sends the wrong message as Yann said above, and I'm also concerned that they show no contrition for the unblock or the lack of communication beforehand. They also have not addressed that their COI in the matter. I also concur with Krd that we cannot support a hostile environment. Abzeronow (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @A.Savin: I would only suggest that the original post needs reworded per COM:NLT. There are many ways we can express our view without using legal terms like libel. GMGtalk 21:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Having had a bit more time to look into the matter... No, one admin should not reverse another's actions without discussion unless it is egregious misuse of the tools that leaves room for little interpretation, something of the type that you start looking for a Steward for an emergency desysoping. I would expect an acknowledgement of this standard as a bare minimum from Kallerna. Having said that, it's a little on-the-nose to be arguing over incivility and the response from A.Savin is "bla bla", which very much comes off in text as being frustrated and not super keen on discussing the issue on equanimous terms. GMGtalk 22:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In broader terms: undoing a block is almost never (maybe literally never?) an emergency. Unless I'm missing something, in this case the block (whether justified or not) had one more day to run! Commons can do without any individual contributor, myself included, for a day. - Jmabel ! talk 22:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kallerna: Since you said you were travelling (see above), I waited before writing this. Hopefully you can answer now.
Do you maintain you position, i.e. that your unblocking of Karelj was justified? Also do you apologize for calling SHB2000 a troll? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 GMGtalk 13:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+2 --A.Savin 14:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+3. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've been informed privately that Kallerna will be indisposed until at least the end of the holidays. I would suggest that we have a touch of the spirit of the season and recognize that this can be resolved, but that waiting a touch doesn't necessarily constitute a crisis. GMGtalk 20:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @GreenMeansGo: that's fine with me if Kallerna is genuinely taking a break; there is nothing emergent here if they are not actively using their admin privileges. When they are back, though, this needs to be on the radar. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I agree with Jmabel here, there's no rush to this. Hopefully, they will answer questions after they come back from their break. Abzeronow (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I agree – a lot of people will be on break in the next 3 weeks, myself included. As long as they answer our questions and apologise to A.Savin, that's good with me. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Agree with Krd that these tactics more look like "ducking away" rather than like real lack of possibility to respond. Nowadays, even when being on travel (as for most regions of the world esp. Europe), you don't have to stay offline all the time. --A.Savin 15:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @A.Savin: it's not a matter of being unable to access the net, it's a matter of someone choosing to take a break, which is an entirely reasonable thing for someone to do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Yeah, very reasonable, especially if there are pending complaints about you and you don't have any arguments left in your defence, except "I don't discuss with trolls". --A.Savin 02:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I agree. I'm only a little sympathetic because often I don't have internet access while travelling and plan these months beforehand, but I want a definitive date from Kallerna. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As this seems to take indeed longer, I'm adding a 30 day archive blocker in code here -> (). Best regards --Schlurcher (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On enwiki it's sometimes labeled "ANI flu". DMacks (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I laughed my ass off when I read that article (and found w:Wikipedia:Oops Defence). SHB2000 (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deadminship for User:Kallerna[edit]

  •  Support. This subsection should clearly show Bureaucrats whether or not there is a consensus because Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kallerna (de-adminship) was deemed "inadmissible".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Had Kallerna written in this statement sth. like "I've been travelling the last week all over Europe, no time to read this discusion, but meanwhile I see that it was my mistake, I shouldn't have unblocked Karelj without discussion, and it is also not true what I said that A.Savin wanted to be silencing a user who disagreed with him, I'm sorry for that", then we could have closed the whole thread straightaway and move on, but seeing what they actually wrote... No way. --A.Savin 16:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Defending uncivil behaviour by being uncivil and overriding normal procedures on the way is not what I expect from an admin. --Kritzolina (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support as the nominator of the now-invalid thread; what Kritzolina and A.Savin mentioned. Thanks for starting this subsection, Jeff G.! --SHB2000 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I'm not as extreme as A.Savin, but Karelj shouldn't have been unblocked without discussion, and Karelj hasn't even seemed to hear that the edit comment was as much of a problem as the unblock.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support not to discuss with trolls ... ouch Killarnee (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Neutral on de-adminship, but in favor of starting a formal process to discuss it. It doesn't worry me as much that Kallerna did the wrong thing in the first place as that the way they've handled this (including apparently not understanding that non-admins are allowed to participate in this page, and calling another user a "troll" for doing so). If Kallerna believes this was fine on their part, then that's a problem. If they understand at this point that they blew this -- in more than one respect -- then maybe they are liable to grow into the job. - Jmabel ! talk 22:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose GMGtalk 17:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I do not believe this isolated incident rises to the level of a desysop. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At least an acknowledgement from Kallerna would be good, but no, they've yet to acknowledge why their actions were problematic. Had they done so, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per above. 1989 (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment terrible unblock on the basis of both procedure and what I'd call a degree of involvement (karel and kallerna having more or less the same style of participation at fpc, and this being about fpc participation), but to the extent this is about that one unblock I'd say this should be closed with an unequivocal warning. I'd prefer to see a pattern or at least another example of bad judgment with tool use to support here. Stopping short of opposing though, as I think it's reasonable to say "we should have a deadminship conversation" which is all this section is deciding. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Right, "we should have a deadminship conversation".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment What Jmabel said. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per OP and Jmabel. --Daniele Fisichella 12:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per above. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Jalapeño (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Schlurcher (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC) . The following quote shows are huge misunderstanding of Commons policies: You are not a admin, and you are not involved in the matter - I did not have any reason to communicate with you. (the part before the comma should be irrelevant)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Their only block log entry is the one under discussion here, which has a taste on it's own. The attitude shown above, plus ducking away, holiday season or not. --Krd 08:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Per Schlurcher. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Roman Ivanovych Kovalchuk[edit]

Copyright violation: from video

And also other files with Copyright violation. It is too much! This must be stopped. --Микола Василечко (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Микола Василечко: You failed to mention or notify Roman Ivanovych Kovalchuk (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , as instructed above. I did it for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I gave the user a final warning 17:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC). File:Каскад ставків в селі Мухавка. 5-й став.png was deleted 18:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC) by Yann. They have since uploaded File:Володимир Тарнавський.jpg 08:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC) with doubtful licensing and File:Galizien und Lodomerien (1779–1783) Muchawka.png 01:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC) with also doubtful licensing (it was removed with alleged source and alleged author by Микола Василечко (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) ).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And also false «own work» in files with name "Šematizm...", "Schematismus..." and other. --Микола Василечко (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They also uploaded copyvios File:Chapel of the Mother of God.png and File:Cerkva in Mukhavka.jpg after that final warning.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judging at least in part by dialogue on their talk page, at least as far as FOP violations, the user does not seem to understand that copyright expiration in Ukraine is based on the creator's death date, not when the work was executed. I remarked back to them on that (simple enough that I trusted Google Translate to write it in Ukrainian). But, yes, if they won't even acknowledge that they've been uploading outright copyvios and promise to stop doing that, I don't see how the situation is salvageable. Does someone want to reach out one more time, or just block? - Jmabel ! talk 19:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: I think I made it clear above that they need to be blocked. Furthermore, they insulted you with "Маразм!!!" in this edit.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Ahonc, Well-Informed Optimist, Андрей Романенко, George Chernilevsky, Butko as Admins with expertise in Ukrainian.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He just does not understand. Believe me, it is not easy for a person from another culture to understand, why he cannot make a photo of the church in his village. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are two separate issues here: lack of freedom of panorama in Ukraine, and the fact that (I'm pretty sure legitimately) he posted this content to Facebook before posting here. The latter is easily resolved; the former may make it impossible for us to have some of these specific images. But I still think it's worth having the discussion with him. User:Андрей Романенко, could you see (and possibly translate) my latest remark on his user talk page?
I'm pretty sure the guy is a good photographer who is having trouble understanding the subtleties of copyright and licensing. I think it is worth working with him to sort that out, rather than kick him off the project. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:地下高雄[edit]

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

Per COM:LP category names should be in English, but unfortunately the user insists on keeping non-English names, especially since his choice of language is "Bân-lâm-gú". Its pronunciation and spelling is completely different from English. See Chen Jhong-he and compare with Tan Tiong-ho, the former is the English pronunciation and the latter is the Bân-lâm-gú pronunciation. If we choose a non-English language to name the categories, it will cause these problems:

  1. Does not match the page name on Wikipedia (including Wikidata), which can confuse readers even more.
  2. For readers who are not familiar with the Bân-lâm-gú language, they can't find the corresponding categories via the English names.

We should strive for consistency and usability for all users, so I've tried fixing them:

However, User:地下高雄 seems to disagree with me because he reverted all edits and he say, “According to Commons:Naming categories, For subjects of only local relevance, proper names in the original language are used generally, original Taiwanese names are in line with historical and linguistic background of these people, shouldn't be regarded as 'Bad name',shouldn't exclusively prefer for single Romanization method.”

Additionally, this is the first time I discuss with you in English. If you feel that my English expression is so bad, there's nothing I can do about that.--125.230.88.69 02:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree. There are quite amount entries / pages with pre-Mandarin Sinic name are not named with Mandarin, for example, Koxinga (國姓爺 in Hokkien), Lo bah png (滷肉飯 in POJ), Misua (麵線 in TL), Lor mee (撈麵 in SE Hokkien), Bak kut teh (肉骨茶 in SE Hokkien), or Category:Tan Seng Ong Temple, Jakarta (陳聖王廟 in SE Hokkien). Those names are original names and predate Mandarin; they are definitely not "Bad names".
Additionally, those so-called "bad-named" pages are already provided with Mandarin spelling as English name(s) thus enable non-BLG users reach those pages via search. --TX55TALK 03:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither of these are English. The line from COM:LP that you cite later links to Commons:Categories#Category names, which states: "Latin alphabets are used in original form including diacritics and derived letters, non-Latin alphabets are transcribed to the English Latin script." So policy does not state which romanization of Chinese to use, only that Chinese characters are not allowed in category names. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought that category names should be spelled one way when the first time I read COM:LP. However, Taiwan's category pages are sometimes named in English, and sometimes they are named in Bân-lâm-gú. Why does Taiwan need two languages? Also, how do you people decide which category pages should be named in English, or Bân-lâm-gú?--125.230.88.69 04:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Subjects existed before Mandarin becomes the official language in Taiwan usually named with TW-BLG, Hakka, or Formosans (example as seen aforementioned); People who has English names and use it internationally, it's English name, such as Category:James Soong. --TX55TALK 04:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because their mother tongue is Chinese, and their government's official language is Mandarin. But, Chinese including Hakka and Bân-lâm-gú (TW-BLG). When they change their category names from Chinese to English, we won't be able to distinguish which languages is Hakka, Mandarin, or Bân-lâm-gú (TW-BLG). As a result, people who are only familiar with someone language will think other languages ​​are wrong. This is why edit wars happen. To avoid it happening again in the future, we need to know how do Taiwanese people decide which category pages should be named in which languages.--125.230.88.69 05:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Development of National Languages Act, every language in Taiwan shall be deemed as equal as official language. Article 4 states all national languages shall be treated equally and using them shall not be discriminated nor limited. So it is reasonable to name entry by their own mother tongue.
Additionally, Category:Mona Rudao is "Mona Rudao" instead of "Muo-na-lu-tao", while "Category:Seediq people" is not named "Sai-tê k'ê". All those entries have their own legit Mandarin names, but their international entries are still their mother tongue name. --TX55TALK 09:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, Mandarin is the official language of Singapore, but the entry Category:Teo Hong Road, Singapore is not named in Mandarin. In addition, there are many Singaporean people's entry (Category:People of Singapore of Chinese descent) are not named in Mandarin, such as Category:Tan Kah Kee.
The entry Ng Man-tat, an Hong Kong actor, is named in Cantonese, even it is not an official language in current Hong Kong, nor in British Hong Kong. --TX55TALK 09:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this user confused the presentation and pronunciation of Chinese characters. Words written in Chinese characters can not only be pronounced in Mandarin. For example, 大阪 is pronounced as Osaka (Japanese) instead of Daban (Mandarin), 國姓爺 is pronounced as Koxiga (Hokkien: Kok-sìng-iâ) instead of Guoxingye (Mandarin). It is necessary to consider the cultural and historical background of the name, and respect the language used by this person.
Take 陳中和 as an example. He was a Taiwanese (Taiwanese Hokkien) speaker under the Qing and Japanese rule. He had never experienced the Republic of China, which promote Mandarin. He called himself Tan Tiong-ho (Taiwanese) throughout his whole life, and never called himself Chen Jhong-he (Mandarin), because 陳中和 was originally a Taiwanese name.
Most people today may be more familiar with these names in Mandarin, but this does not mean that Taiwanese or Hakka names should be regarded as "bad names" for granted. In addition, today there are also people in who choose Taiwanese pronunciation as their English names, such as Hsaio Bi-khim (蕭美琴).
In these categories, I always provide descriptions and Wikidata Infobox to help people recognize the different pronunciations of a Chinese character name. In addition, we should respect the existing category names too(nc: FCFS). I have never changed existing Mandarin name to a Taiwanese or Hakka name either. 地下高雄 (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem to be blaming me? I have never done this. 大阪 and 國姓爺 are Chinese characters, but the former should be pronounced as "Osaka" in Japanese and the latter should be internationally named as Koxinga. So, I haven't done any edits with these two categories: Osaka and Koxinga. 地下高雄, it's better to keep the discussion on the topic rather than speculating me.--125.230.88.69 07:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might have misunderstood; this was an example rather than blaming you. The example was meant to express that Chinese characters are not exclusive to Mandarin. When we see someone romanize Chinese characters in Japanese or Cantonese, we won't criticize them for not using Mandarin pronunciation because it's the original pronunciation of this term in specific cultural context. Following the same logic, why should Taiwanese and Hakka be considered incorrect spellings? Are local languages considered inferior? Using the original pronunciation not only avoids a lack of respect for local culture as people did in the past but also provides historical evidence. For instance, using Xingang or Hejinding, we can't find anything in the Dutch East India Company's documents. However, using the original pronunciations like Sinkan (Sin-káng) and Kimtingh (Hô Kim-tīng) helps us connect these terms in different linguistic and cultural context. As for the confusion caused by spelling variations, it can be resolved through appropriate description. 地下高雄 (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. Original names shows not only "respect" to the subject, but also present its the historical context as well as cultural background. --TX55TALK 04:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
地下高雄 and TX55, allow me to ask a question about this: The question is how do you know which language to name categories? For example, "蕭美琴" in Chinese, it can be "Louise Hsiao" in English, or "Hsiao Mei-chin" in Mandarin (Chinese pronunciation), or "Hsaio Bi-khim" in Bân-lâm-gú (Taiwanese pronunciation). If we don’t know, I believe someone will make the same mistake as me in the future.--125.230.88.69 05:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non-Mandarin users tend to use the most used or formal international name of the subject, take 蕭美琴 for example, her name is internationally known as "Bi-Khim Hsiao", a combination of BLG (in POJ) and Mandarin (in WG) for given name and surname respectively. Since she already has an internationally, the chance of mistake is low; while for other subjects predates ROC Taiwan (= Mandarin-as-official-language Taiwan), even they go with non-Mandarin names, users can still find them via search in their Mandarin names. That's why there is {{en|Name spelled in Mandarin}} which will allow user to find them. --TX55TALK 08:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
你這有說等於是沒說。正如我剛才說過，台灣人對人物類別的命名方式是令人難以捉摸，有時候會用國語，也有時候會用閩南語，只從Commons這裡是完全看不出來。原因是我們將中文轉換成英文，在Commons這裡只會看見一串英文字組成的名字，可是英語、國語、閩南語之間的書寫卻是大相逕庭。也就是說，單靠名字來看，無論是用哪一種語言，其實他們同樣都是英文字母組成，看起來就與英文名字是沒什麼區別。正因為如此，當初我考量到命名的一致性與跨語言連結的相應性，才會將User:地下高雄所建立的類別給改掉。
如果要避免未來再發生這種問題，最好作法是在類別上添加解釋，以提醒大家該類別使用的名字是根據什麼，否則真的會混淆。就像你舉例蕭美琴，一個人居然有三種名字：1.Louise Hsiao，2.Hsiao Mei-chin，3.Hsaio Bi-khim，而且每一種都是同樣用英文字母組成，乍看就像一個人有三種英文名字，那當然會有人搞不清楚，搞不清楚的結果就是如這一次陳中和發生，誤將自己看不懂語言的拼寫給改成自己認為通用的另一種語言拼寫。但是，我絕對不是故意這麼做，所以我必須在一次強調，我是從Commons這裡只看見英文字母組成的一串名字，並不清楚這當中居然還有分國語、閩南語、客家語，甚至是原住民語，因為當初我以為台灣只有國語一種語言（而我現在中文書寫就是國語），並不是像User:地下高雄所說我對國語羅馬化的拼寫有特殊的喜好。往後，還需要請你們加強這方面的提醒。
此外，台灣政府向來只用國語作為轉換成英文的主要語言，因為Commons有很多道路標示牌的照片可以看到，中文下方有一串英文字母組成的名字。可是，台灣原住民部落在英文命名上似乎是用自己的語言，因為用國語轉換成英文而來的拼寫，完全是與他們的部落名字是對應不上。請恕我抱怨，真的是太多語言，令人實在不知道你們是如何依據哪些情況該用哪種語言？--125.230.88.69 10:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
我想我已經說得頗明白了，包括稍早強調在頁面中加註各種已知的外文名稱與發音轉寫。「令人實在不知道你們是如何依據哪些情況該用哪種語言？」簡單來說：名從主。先查詢是否有既定或常用的外文名稱（可能是台語、客語、族語、華語，或其他外文如英文），若無，再採用華語拼音作為國際名稱。
「漢語族主題的漢字名稱之頁面標題」是時常會有名從主的狀況而不一定使用華語作為其國際名稱（international name）。如前所述，台灣人像是「蕭美琴」就是台語名字配上華語姓氏WG拼音的「Bi-khim Hsiao」、全台文的「史明 / Su Beng」、全族語的「莫那魯道 / Mona Rudao」、英文名字的「宋楚瑜 / James Soong」、華語WG拼音的「鄭南榕 / Cheng Nan-jung」，以及姓氏華語WG拼音配上名字粵文（粵語拼音）的「孫逸仙/ Sun Yat-sen」和「蔣介石 / Chiang Kai-shek」。與台灣無關主題的，也有香港武術家「葉問 / Ip Man」（粵語）、新加坡道路「趙芳路 / Teo Hong Road」（福建話搭配英文）、東南亞食物「肉骨茶 / Bak kut teh」。
「名從主」原則基本上就是
1. 該主題是否有自行取了慣用外文名字或官方外文名字，如：蕭美琴 Bi-khim Hsiao、史明 Su Beng、林昶佐 Freddy Lim、宋楚瑜 James Soong
1b 或是有通行、常見的國際名稱，如：蔣介石 Chiang Kai-shek、肉骨茶 Bak kut teh。
1c 地名與路名大多都已有官方外文名稱，大多為華語，少數例外是淡水 Tamsui（台文）、司馬庫斯 Smangus（泰雅語）；基隆則採用舊的拼音Keelung，其他縣市則是WG拼音。
2. 若無，先以使用者母語為主，如：陳中和 Tan Tiong-ho（過世時，華語尚未在台灣成為官方語言）、莫那魯道 Mona Rudao
至於中華民國政府開始統治台灣之後，因為國語政策，使得官方語言‧國語（中華民國華語）成為了強勢的主要語言（dominant language），因此大多這時期後出生或出現的主題，若無特別國際名稱，基本上都是以華語WG拼音作為國際稱呼。
附帶一提，您稍早做的變更名稱，是WG威妥瑪拼音、TY通用拼音、HY漢語拼音混雜。基本上目前中華民國的慣例是：在無特定狀況之下，人名與縣市地名採WG拼音；區、鄉鎮市、道路名稱採漢語拼音或是通用拼音（視縣市而定）。
--TX55TALK 15:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(English translation for non-Mandarin user) I think I've made my statement clear enough earlier, including emphasising that known international or foreign names should be added to category pages to increase the accessibility.
As for "This makes people unable to know what's the basis for you guys to decide what language should be used as page name for each entry (topic)", I will put this in simple: proper names in the original language are used generally. We should check if the subject already has an established forein names, which could be written in Taiwanese, Hakka, Formosan, or other foreign languages, such as English. If not, Mandarin should be used instead.
International names for "Entry name (page title) with Sinic character" are usually Latinized original names and they are not necessarily Mandarin. As mentioned earlier, Taiwanese, such as Bi-Khim Hsiao (蕭美琴), is a combination of Taiwanese POJ (for given name) and Mandarin MG (for surname), Su Beng (史明) is a Taiwanese name in POJ, Mona Rudao (莫那魯道) is in Seediq, James Soong is 宋楚瑜's English name, Cheng Nan-jung is 鄭南榕 in Mandarin WG, and Sun Yat-sen as well as Chang Kai-shek are combinationes of Cantonese (for given name) and Mandarin (for surname). Additionally, take some non-Taiwanese topic entry for example, the Hong Kong-based martial artist Ip Man is 葉問 in Cantonese, while Teo Hong Road (a street in Singapore) and Bak kut teh are written in Hokkien.
Basically, the rule of "proper names in the original language are used generally" includes:
1. Does the entry have its own common foreign name or official international name? Examples are: 蕭美琴 Bi-khim Hsiao、史明 Su Beng、林昶佐 Freddy Lim、宋楚瑜 James Soong
1b. or general international names? Such as 蔣介石 Chiang Kai-shek、肉骨茶 Bak kut teh。
1c. International names for locations/places or road/street are mostly official and Latinized from Mandarin. There are some exceptions which are not Mandarin, such as Tamsui (淡水 in Taiwanese), Smangus (司馬庫斯 in Atayal); The spelling of Keelung is an old transcription, which other county and city names are transcribed by WG.
2. If not, mother tongue is used as first priority, such as 陳中和 Tan Tiong-ho (a Taiwanese who died before Mandarin became official language in Taiwan)、Mona Rudao (a Formosan indigenous).
For those entries come into existence after ROC began to govern over Taiwan, due to the Mandarin policy, they should be transcribed from Mandarin if they don't have any name in mother tongue.
Additionally, I'd like to point out those edits you made earlier include three transcriptions system for Mandarin: WG, TY, and HY. Currently, the usual practice in Taiwan under normal circumstance is: WG for people's names and City/county names, while TL or HY for municipality unter city/county.
--TX55TALK 19:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [Poorly translated; Original text in Mandarin post at 15:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)]Reply[reply]
Indeed, so you also know that in Taiwan, a name often has multiple pronunciations. This represents the "fact" that we have multiculture. That’s why we shouldn’t exclusively prefer for only one language, but should respect the pre-existing language, and then help people easily recognize different languages.
For example, the English wiki of Souw Beng Kong(蘇鳴崗), Lai Afong(黎芳), Sun-sun(純純), Chiu Thiam-ōng(周添旺), Su Beng(史明), and Koh Se-kai(許世楷) are all non-Mandarin pronunciation, and they are also internationally known by these names. Wouldn't it be confusing for non-Mandarin speakers when they search for information of these figures in Mandarin? This is what I (and other users) have said again and again, that multilingual descriptions can overcome this problem, rather than treating other languages ​​as wrong or inferior.
In addition, in response to your six consecutive comments on my page, here is my reply:
1. Category: Tomb of Chen Chung-ho (changed to Tomb of Chen Jhong-he by you) was an existing category created by other user, not me. Considering NC:FCFS, I didn’t change the name, but add a description to help people recognize it.
2. FYI, the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan has a process of respecting and adapting to the local language during the missionary activity, Toa-kia Presbyterian Church is the official name they have used for a long time, just like Bangkah, Bunsen and Kî-âu Presbyterian Church ( According to their inscription). 地下高雄 (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know that your language still spoken is Mandarin. 蘇鳴崗, 黎芳, 純純, 周添旺, 史明, 許世楷, etc., they are written in Mandarin. How do you know which language (or, say spelling way) to choose for naming categories? When converting from Mandarin to English (not English but it literally looks like an English name), you should have a method to know which language to use first. What are your guidelines based on?--125.230.88.69 11:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those names are not written in Mandarin (a spoken language); they are written in traditional Chinese (a writing system). It is not possible to tell whether a name written in Chinese characters is Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien/Taiwanese, etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But, I see a very serious problem: When I type the title of the category page in the search box, it shows a red link, which means it cannot find the correct category. For example, typing "Tekitsu" in the search box, and it shows "Category:Tekitsu" instead of "Category:Tē-ki-tsú". Any suggestions on how to solve this?--125.230.89.198 03:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Make a redirect from one to the other.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that we don't know the correct category is Category:Tē-ki-tsú unless the search engine can find it. Therefore, typing "Tekitsu" in the search box is cannot find the category we want to, but we also don't know that the page already exists and it called "Tē-ki-tsú". I think that ē and ú symbols cause problems for users when searching. However, some people ignore this completely and continue to name categories in the same way. How to solve this?--125.230.89.198 08:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People who create cats with non-latin character sets and with dashes should make redirects to them using latin character sets and no dashes, as appropriate. Why did you not create the redirect? Also, if you already have an account, what is your account name?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't a serious problem because your premise was incorrect. In languages like Taiwanese and Hakka, each syllable is usually written separately, such as Tē-ki-tsú or Te Ki Tsu, and not combined like Tekitsu. You can look at 臺灣閩南語羅馬字拼音方案連字符使用規則 for guidelines. When dealing with unfamiliar matters, the best practice is to make an effort to understand and maintain respect, just as many people are not familiar with English or Mandarin either.
Regarding the search problem with symbols like ē and ú, I'm not sure if you've actually tried: whether you use Tē-ki-tsú, Te-ki-tsu, or Te Ki Tsu, you can effectively search for Category:Tē-ki-tsú. No only Taiwanese, other languages with non-English characters have similar situations. For example, searching for "hong nam hung" effectively retrieves the Vietnamese category "Category:Hoàng Nam Hùng."
By adding appropriate description and Wikidata Infobox, you can effectively find the same category by clicking the Categories and Pages tab under the search results, regardless of whether you use "地基主," "Tē-ki-tsú," "Dijizhu," or "Ti Chi Chu." 地下高雄 (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just want to point out that this problem is not specific to Taiwan and Hong Kong (or even Singapore). For example, Category:Chin Gee Hee is about a Taishanese man who spent much of his life in the United States (although he was born in China and died in China). We use the form of his name that he used in an English-language context. He was not a Mandarin-speaker. - Jmabel ! talk 20:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ChrisWx[edit]

Clearly has a vandetta towards Long Islanders interested in weather records. 47.16.96.33 22:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Reporting IP blocked for vandalism. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for continuing my conspiracy! ChrisWx 🎄 (Happy holidays!) 18:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrizwx (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Impersonation...
Please block Chrizwx. · מקף Hyphen ෴ · 18:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done. -- CptViraj (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

M.Bitton[edit]

I was led to this board by @Mdaniels5757 from the vandalism board, since they decided that it wasn't an instance of vandalism. Issue: User M.Bitton keeps reverting edit on File:Administrative Regions of Morocco.jpg, which corrects the dating of the image, and refused to comply after being prompted in the discussion page. The image dates back to 2018 as shown here, but the user entered the archiving date instead (February 2021) which is misleading. I had made a correction by putting the original date of the image on cia.gov, and the current URL, and moving the archiving URL and its date to "alternative versions" section. To put this in full context, there's another dispute open against M.Bitton on Wikidata (here), for biased edits concerning the Western Sahara conflict (and constantly reverting edits that contradict his views on the matter). I was led to the image in question from that discussion when an admin yesterday posted the link to another dispute page on enwiki (here), and I noticed that the image was used in the infobox in the article, and had to check its source and date. If this is not the right location to place this complaint, please let me know. Ideophagous (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ideophagous: I note that you neglected to notify M.Bitton, as required above, and that the user replied on COM:ANV#M.Bitton. I notified them for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G. You're right. Thanks for your help. Ideophagous (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ideophagous: You're welcome. Now, please stop hounding M.Bitton.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Jeff G.. I have zero interest in hounding this user, as I have better things to do on Wikimedia projects and elsewhere, but it so happens that he's always involved in vandalizing or creating controversy regarding Morocco-related pages. And speaking of which, what do you call writing on my talk page to warn me about unrelated issues? Please focus on the topic at hand, or let an administrator take care of this. Ideophagous (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ideophagous: I call that warning as a result of patrolling. It happens every day here. I actually brought Template:File copyright status here. When I see something, I say something. Please see the file redlinks on User talk:Ideophagous/archive up to 2022 and the history of User talk:Ideophagous.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G. As I have already answered you on my talk page, those issues are old, and have already been handled, which is why I moved them to an archive subpage. Now please stop wasting time. Ideophagous (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You brought it up.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is clearly a case of harassment by a single purpose nationalist editor. As for the map, I listed the original source (which is more than enough) and the date of the upload (which also happens to be the date the derivative was made). M.Bitton (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @M.Bitton. There's no harassmnent involved, since I simply followed the trail of pages as I already explained, and surprise surprise, it happens to be the same editor vandalizing Morocco-related pages on various projects with obsession. The date is simply incorrect, and you could have gracefully accepted the correction and moved on. Ideophagous (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If it's a derivative work, then the date of the derivative work is indeed the date the derivative work was made. However, it should correctly indicate the date of the source map on which it was based, since it presumably represents the situation at the time of the source, not at the time of the derivative. If the derivative reflects changes after that date, it should almost certainly cite a source for the differences. - Jmabel ! talk 18:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • It's a derivative of a map that is in the public domain (most maps that are based on them don't even include the source). The original link to the cited source that was used to create is archived and no longer accessible. M.Bitton (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Archive.org link is fine. Do we know the date of the map? And, yes, a lot of people are really lousy about sourcing their maps, which keeps being a problem whenever there are disputes. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I don't know, and to be honest, even if I did, I still wouldn't change the description of a map that has been in use for a while, least of all, comply with the demands of an editor who keeps personally attacking me and wasting my time. As far as I'm concerned, doing so would set a bad precedent and would go against the very freedom that the public domain licence gives editors such as myself. If it bothers them that much, they'll just have to look elsewhere and keep using the utterly ridiculous maps on their favourite project. M.Bitton (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • @M.Bitton My point, quite independent of this editor, is that it should be clear what date a map represents, and in cases where there is controversy, whose view of the situation it represents. In particular, it is based on a CIA map where all you/we can confidently say is that it was some time before your version, with unspecified changes made by you. For encyclopedic purposes or other educational purposes that doesn't sound particularly useful. Understand, I haven't examined it closely, I have not even given more than passing thought to what specific objections someone would have beyond "area of the world with lots of disputed borders," and the only axe I have to grind here is analogous to believing that articles should cite their sources, especially in controversial matters.. - Jmabel ! talk 07:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @Jmabel @M.Bitton The original work is accessible, the url was simply changed on cia.org. You can find the list of location maps of Morocco here which includes the year of each map, and that specific map here. Ideophagous (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        That's not the original URL (which is cited in the source). Please stop harassing me all the time with your pings and personal attacks. M.Bitton (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @M.Bitton It's the URL to the original work, still on cia.gov, not the original URL, which as has been mentioned, does not work anymore. You're not being harassed, you should simply accept being corrected with grace and move on. Ideophagous (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Please stop harassing me with your pings and personal attacks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @Ideophagous if M.Bitton does not wish to be pinged, please don't ping him. If he complains about being blindsided, you can point here (use a permalink) to indicate that you were doing what he requested. - Jmabel ! talk 22:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          @Jmabel Alright, will do, thank you. Ideophagous (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          @Ideophagous: as far as I can see, the pointer to archive.org is a perfectly acceptable way to acknowledge the source. Given that M.Bitton seems committed to using that, I suggest dropping that particular issue. Is there something you think I'm missing about that? - Jmabel ! talk 22:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          My only concern is that the date of the original work is not specified, which would be misleading to other editors, especially coming from Wikipedia where the image is used. I originally opened a discussion on en:Talk:Regions of Morocco (where M.Bitton himself responded voluntarily as I didn't ping him there) specifying that the file should not be used in the infobox, as it misrepresents the topic, but also the position of the US regarding the territorial conflict, which has been changed officially in 2020, and no longer reflects the content of the map. Dating the file to 2021 is grossly misleading, to say the least. If on the other hand it's a common practice on Commons, to date files only according to their last modification or addition on the site, then so be it. I still find it strange that the user refuses to update the data in the description of the file, and agressively reverts edits to that effect, despite being provided with compelling proof as to the original date and the new URL on the same website where it was hosted. Ideophagous (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          Your so-called "concerns" about what is misleading are frankly laughable given that in your favourite project, you've been editing this article about Western Sahara (permalink) (which denies it very existence) and that the article you're referring to displays about 4 or 5 maps that are misleading beyond the pale, but for obvious reasons and in line with your nationalist agenda, that doesn't seem to bother you one bit. M.Bitton (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          As I have already explained on en:Talk:Regions of Morocco, I only edited that article to revert vandalism and/or make minor stylistic adjustments. If I had a nationalistic agenda as you claim, you would be looking at a long detailed article written from a pure Moroccan POV, which is not the case, since I don't actually care about this conflict that much to begin with. Furthermore, since this is a very sensitive topic in Morocco, changing the map on the Moroccan Darija Wikipeia would create a backlash, which I frankly don't want to get myself into as it would be a complete waste of time, and a distraction from more important stuff I want to do (just like these whole conversations have been). Let politicians come to an agreement on the fate of that region, and then we'll just reflect the consensus from reliable sources, whatever it is at that point. If the map really concerns you, feel free to suggest a neutral one that does not trigger the sensitivities of the editors on that project, and if the arywiki community accepts it, I will add it myself. Ideophagous (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          @Jmabel I see that you added the file to Category:2018 maps of Africa. If the state of the page is overall in line with Commons policies and guidelines, then I'm satisfied. Ideophagous (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done I blocked M.Bitton for 2 weeks for the last edit, also now reverted. Yann (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weird behavior by Aka[edit]

Hi. Aka is an administrator and seems to have an ongoing battle with Falk2 who contributes under IP after they've been blocked. Note that I agree with Aka that Falk2 can have disruptive behavior and was even involved in the discussion that led to them being blocked. Two things are in my opinion not OK and should stop:

  • After Aka blocks Falk2, they revert some of their valid edits and therefore bring pages to a worse state: Revision #831669841 as an example. This has been discussed on their talk page already: User talk:Aka#Kategorisierung. I really don't see the point of these edits other than being punitive actions that are a net negative for the project.
  • Undiscussed wide range block: I talked to Aka on their talk page about it. Instead of following procedure, they lifted the block and deleted the discussion from their talk page with the summary please go away: Revision #802704878.

I'm no administrator but these actions wouldn't be OK for a regular user and even less for an administrator. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aka: For my part, of course, I would  Strong support a Wikimedia-wide ban of Falk2 -- he knows why, you know why, many others meanwhile probably know why as well.
However, as long as he is not banned (not to confuse a project-wide block with a global ban!), we don't delete his uploads "only because it's by Falk2", and we don't revert good-faith edits* (* = edits that we normally don't revert if they are made by any non-blocked user) on these uploads. I agree that this is a problematic behaviour by you to say the least. An admin should not delete questions on the own talk page, either. Would you please immediately STOP these practices? Thank you!!
It would be way more useful if you would initiate a Global ban proposal for Falk2 on Meta instead. As stated, in this issue you have my support. Once Falk2 is banned, all his subsequently submitted uploads and other IP or sockpuppet edits are subject to speedy deletion and rollback. And this is really overdue. --A.Savin 04:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons:Blocking policy says User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may and should also be blocked. Falks2 regularly circumvents his permanent ban as an IP. I'm blocking this and reverting his posts. I never deleted an upload of him. -- aka 07:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aka: Once again, reverts of good-faith edits, even of those by sockpuppets, are not allowed. The only exception are global banned users. Please go ahead and start the ban proposal. But as long as he is not banned do not revert edits like this one. Repeating this despite of multiple requests to stop it may be considered vandalism. Frankly I'm disappointed about your responses. It appears a bit like pretending to be deaf. An admin should not behave like this. Please reconsider your behaviour immediately, otherwise it will have consequences for you. Thanks --A.Savin 12:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aka: your unwillingness to address the issues that I'm raising (and that have been brought up to your attention on your talk page) does not reflect well on your ability to be an administrator. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I now understand it and will adjust my behavior. I'm not sure whether his behavior is bad enough to warrant a global ban. Beside this, I don't have any experience with these global bans. -- aka 13:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great. You could start by reverting your reverts of valid edits. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aka: Honestly it feels like you're just paying lip service. You've failed to address in details the issues that I've pointed out, and failed to follow by actions. It took me poking you for you to silently take action and not even acknowledge on this thread that you've done so. In my opinion you have failed your duties as administrator. The only thing stopping me to ask for de-adminship is that COM:DEADMIN mentions "an administrator is acting against policy and routinely abusing their status". I don't see this as routine yet but will ask for de-adminship if you fail again. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • As a side note, I'm not fully sure I understand why our toleration extends to users blocked for something like harassment and intimidation. That seems to send a message that hypothetically, someone could be blocked for slinging slurs and epithets and we're still obligated to tolerate their continued participation so long as they successfully evade the block. It seems to run contrary to the spirit of all the talk at the Foundation level about enforcing friendly spaces. GMGtalk 14:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I did this with the best of intentions, of course. -- aka 15:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think the reason is similar as for en:WP:Clean start -- as long as the blocked user is contributing valid content and not making the same problems as those led to their block, such kind of evasion may be tolerable. However it's not like I personally would support further Falk2 uploads at any price, because I suppose that a real clean start by the person behind the account Falk2 is impossible, and we're not that poor to take "tainted gift". --A.Savin 18:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:Contributions/2601:47:4081:50C0:0:0:0:0/64[edit]

Seeing some strange behavior on deletion discussions from this IP range, and it looks like they've been blocked previously (ping: @Elcobbola). Might need a reblock? Omphalographer (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is indeed a returning LTA in need of a reblock. Per DENY, I would recommend removing or disregarding the referenced DR comments. Эlcobbola talk 14:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:ライロヲ[edit]

This user is using the user page and the talk page for pranks. This user has been blocked at JAWP for the same reason despite repeated warnings. (cf. Records) And the user is also over-creating unnecessary categories and doesn't seem to understand policy of Wikimedia Commons. The user should be blocked. Bart Buchtfluß (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment I cleaned the talk page, and sent a warning. I let others decide about a block. Yann (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Britchi Mirela[edit]

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done The threshold for blocking for FoP violations is quite high (so long as the photos are in fact own work), and IMO it is not met. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@King of Hearts: I replied at User talk:Britchi Mirela#Copyright violation using Google Translate. I also noticed that they tend to reply to DR notifications on their user talk page, rather than on the DRs. Romanian speakers welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also want to add, as someone who has spent a fair amount of time in Romania and has at least a moderate knowledge of the language: Romania's extreme lack of FoP (plus some other laws left over from Communist times about what you may not photograph) make things very difficult for anyone doing photography there. Quite a few Romanian contributors have railed against these laws, often blaming Commons for having some sort of anti-Romanian bias because we enforce their own country's copyright rules. It is sometimes very unintuitive: a century-old building that has status as a Monument Historic is still in copyright because the architect lived into the 1970s; an absolutely innocuous Communist-era apartment house of no particular architectural merit is considered copyrightable; the massive Bulevardul Unirii leads dramatically to the Palace of Parliament, all Stalinist kitsch by certainly one of Bucharest's best-known and most photographed vistas and buildings, and basically none of this can be shown in Commons because it is all from the 1980s. Etc. Think of the FoP situation in France, but in a country where many regions have few surviving buildings predating the 20th Century, and you can imagine. Yes, we need to delete the FoP violations, but we shouldn't really be angry at people for uploading them, and anyway these are steadily falling out of copyright at which point we will be glad to have them here to undelete. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with KoH and Jmabel here. I agree with deleting Romanian FoP violations as we find them. I sympathize with Romanians that wish to photograph their countries monuments, and I hope whichever Wikimedia chapter is in Romania receives organization support for changing copyright laws so there is an acceptable to Commons freedom of panorama in the country as Romania has many beautiful buildings and monuments that we currently cannot host due to copyright laws. Abzeronow (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Fitzkarl[edit]

  • Fitzkarl (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  • Fitzkarl has a long history of uploading copyvios, claiming image uploads as own work and making false licence claims despite many warnings. Today the user uploaded File:Colonel Sir Donald Cameron of Lochiel, 25th Chief of Clan Cameron.jpg (see deletion discussion), which is a file by Walter Stoneman that Fitzkarl has twice uploaded to English Wikipedia under a fair use argument. After the last time the file was deleted there, Fitzkarl acknowledged in July 2023 that, "I guess we will have to wait 10 years before adding the beautiful Stoneman portrait!"[3] Less than 6 months later, the user has chosen to upload here knowing it was a copyright violation. Any thoughts on where we go from here? From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @From Hill To Shore: One would think they would get the hint after 20 warnings. Anyway, they now have a final warning. Is that enough?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jeff G.: From my previous interactions with Fitzkarl both here and at EN Wikipedia, I don't think I am best placed to decide on whether an action is "enough." I have made the report and am content to abide by whatever action administrators choose to take. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @From Hill To Shore: Thank you. I would have sent a final warning earlier had the situation come to my attention.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Given as the final warning is Already done by Abzeronow, I think we can close this. Any future copyright violations should be met with a block. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 08:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Marina bauer[edit]

Marina bauer (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Another user with a long history of uploading copyvios. I've just tagged a couple which jumped out at me but I suspect there are more; some closer attention is probably needed. Omphalographer (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Omphalographer: You should have notified her on her talk page; I did that for you. You also should have mentioned that she got a last warning 16:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for one week. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:MCGAMER YOUTUBE[edit]

A usor has numerous files containing copyrighted (non-libre) works and series and being out of project scope grabbed from YouTube. See a relevant nomination here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MCGAMER YOUTUBE. - The Harvett Vault | he/him | user | talk - 00:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC); edited: 00:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. I warned the user. If this does not help, then (s)he must be blocked. Taivo (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will take a wild guess and say that he did not bothered to read your warning Trade (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Blocked by Herbythyme. Yann (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Sobhannadi[edit]

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

The user uploads what seems like self-portraits, while also nominating existing photographs for deletion for bogus reasons. (Reporting here because it looks like borderline vandalism to me.)

The first upload was File:Sobhannadi.jpg back in November, and it was followed the next day with a nomination to delete File:Frösjö lake.jpg Because it is nonsense, absolutely unusable in any article, a selfie which is not used in any article, which doesn’t appear to be in good faith. (Full disclosure: I’ve myself suggested, off-wiki, for this file to be uploaded to Commons; not to imply such suggestion was necessary, mind.)

— Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 20:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

copyright violation and fake license[edit]

non of these files are uploader own works [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Singlemotherof4[edit]

Singlemotherof4 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) : while edits are spaced out months apart, other than one now-deleted upload this seems to be a single-purpose account to vandalize pages related to porn actress Cindy Pucci. - Jmabel ! talk 23:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Indef as VoA. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I accidentally made a mistake[edit]

I should not use {{Bad name}} to the category page "Forestry and Nature Conservation Agency Working Station", but it was deleted before I could undo my edit. I don't know how I could restore the original version of the category?--125.230.89.198 13:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yann, could you help me restore it?--125.230.89.198 13:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is empty. Yann (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know. Because I haven't corrected it yet. Category:Forestry and Nature Conservation Agency Working Station should redirect to Category:Working stations of the Forestry and Nature Conservation Agency.--125.230.89.198 14:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Yann (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:LlywelynII[edit]

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

I would like to highlight the user LlywelynII. He / she is a person who is incapable of collaborating, who imposes her point of view and is not willing to serenely discuss a solution. Not only does he / she change categories that would first require a public discussion, but when one of his mistakes or arbitrariness is pointed out to her, he / she very quickly moves on to insults and to be offensive. I see that this is a frequent behavior of him / her that he has not only with me, but also with other users.

I recently pointed out to him the incorrectness of having changed the "Coins of the ancient Roman Republic" to "Coins of the Roman Republic" here, since there were other Roman Republics in other periods (in 1798-1799 and in 1849), not only in the ancient period, and I did it in a polite and kind way, but I only got a rude and arrogant response. My next reply to him/ her he deleted it.

Years ago I politely pointed out to him some errors in his categorization in the Category:Ptolemaic Italy (see his discussion page), even then receiving insults instead of a collaborative attitude. I believe that his uncooperative, arrogant, and only self-referential behavior, accompanied by insults and offensive words, is unacceptable in a collective project like Commons. DenghiùComm (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When there is a disagreement like this, the appropriate vehicle for discussion is usually a CfD, possibly linked from the Village pump (where the description of the conflict should be as neutral as possible). Yes, it's better if the person who wants to change things in a way that is potentially controversial starts a CfD before taking action, but you can always start one after the fact proposing a move back to the prior name. Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Céline Husetowski WMFr[edit]

Someone just tried to have two files deleted with the rationale that they show an «ancien logo»:

This is so obviously wrong and so contrary to the spirit of Commons and of any Wikimadia project that it can only be treated as a case of inappropriate username — even if this account is really not a hoax and indeed Wikimedia France has put their trust on someone who’d work on their outreach and P.R. in such and amateurish and vandalistic way. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • That's quite concerning. Either this is an inappropriate impersonation, or someone with an editorial capacity at Wikimédia France displaying a remarkable ignorance of Wikimedia projects. Is there someone here who has any sort of relationship with Wikimédia France who can follow this up, rather than a random admin? - Jmabel ! talk 07:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    hello,
    I'm working for Wikimedia France.I'm a beginner in Wikimedia commons. These logo are ancient and not used anymore. I had a comment on discussion to finally add them on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_France_communication_archives. Céline Céline Husetowski WMFr (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi,
    I am a volunteer at Wikimédia France, and can confirm Céline works there. So no, there's no impersonation going on with this account.
    Most of the employees are encouraged to contribute to Wikimedia projects but not all of them have previous experience in doing so.
    While I understand that this account being potentially "inappropriate username-y" has raised concerns, please remember to assume good faith, especially for newcomers . Poslovitch (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done I added in the description that these are old logos. Yann (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carigval.97[edit]

User Carigval.97 repeatedly uploading copyright violations, despite warnings. I think they now warrant a block. Bedivere (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. I warned the user – (s)he was not warned previously. All uploads are nominated for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jyix2944884[edit]

Jyix2944884 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

This User not only only uploaded only and a bunch of Copyvios, he already uses Commons very openly in titles and image discriptions for his personal view an his propaganda:

Ge is already blocked at ar:WP and ar:WS. I think, he also should be blocked here indefinetly. But I would like to have a second pair of eyes. Marcus Cyron (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And now the attempt to whitewash his last upload File:EdyCohenWithHisOlderBrother.jpg with a new upload of the same image under a new title, but other source: File:Edy Cohen as a Child With Wis Older Brother.jpg. Marcus Cyron (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
okay okay (روح تعطي) Jyix2944884 (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine ( روح قود تعطي ) Jyix2944884 (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Farid1917 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is a confirmed sockpuppet of Jyix2944884. Both accounts were blocked due to sockpuppetry at ar:wp. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've now indef'd the sockpuppet Farid1917. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=835590250"