Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.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}

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. GMG ^talk 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. GMG^talk 21:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- - Corrected. --A.Savin 02:32, 4 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. GMG ^talk 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 GMG ^talk 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. GMG^talk 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]
    But Kallerna, could you give us a rough date of when you will be back? --SHB2000 (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SHB2000: Given that Kallerna literally hasn't edited any WMF project since 3 December, it is very unlikely that they will even see your question until they are back. Certainly they are doing no harm while absent. - Jmabel ! talk 05:01, 29 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]

Counterpart

Hi everyone, it seems that my answer is needed here. First of all, I want to apologize everyone involved this waste of time - this is not the way we should spend time on Commons. I also apologize SHB2000 for my choice of words, I should have not called you a troll. I however still wonder your motives to use so much energy on this matter: I suggest focusing on more positive and constructive matters.

So to the case here. Karelj made a controversial comment, and he was blocked by A.Savin. Not everybody thought the comment was evil [3]. I unblocked Karelj after two days of block, and did it without discussing about the matter or asking someone else to do the unblocking. This was obviously a mistake. However, some users agreed on lifting the block and Karelj did only beneficial contributions to Commons while unblocked.

Then I guess we are in the actual start of the problems discussed here. I told A.Savin that I lifted the block, and got quite rude replies (and also removal of comments). I did not want to waste everyones time, and I was passive. This was another mistake.

I see it rather odd that most participants here see controversial block with rude comments less harmful to the project than unblocking active editor. And I also want to emphasize that I do not agree with Karelj on most matters - I only reverted the block because I thought it was inadequate. And like said I should have not done it without discussing about it first. —kallerna (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No satisfactory statement for me. The fact that this "waste of time" (which is actually true) had to be gone through we owe only you, Kallerna.

And I also want to emphasize that I do not agree with Karelj on most matters... Let me reveal a secret -- I *do* agree with Karelj on most matters (at least on FPC), I just don't find it okay at all the way he writes it down, including shallow and often disrespectful comments, poor English, etc. So, here we go again: how did the block have anything to do with disagreement, as you noted in the unblock comment? Kallerna, may I finally have an answer please? --A.Savin 14:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see, that was also incorrect assumption by me, I'm sorry. The comment was unnecessary. —kallerna (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm, I am a bit confused by what you think is rude and what is acceptable on Commons, Kallerna. On a scale of 1 to 10 - how rude was A.Savin's reply to you after lifting the block? And how would you place Karelj's comment that led to the block on that scale? Kritzolina (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both are low on your scale, and either of those comments is worth of blocking the user. It is also noteworthy that the photographer herself was not offended, but the professionally offended around. The reason why I mention the coarseness of A.Savin is purely due to the fact he blocked another user due rude comments. —kallerna (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kallerna: I cannot even guess what "the professionally offended around" means. - Jmabel ! talk 06:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, I undestand it in this context like this: Other people in the community, those who are more sensitive or vigilant about offensive content, took issue with the comments. -- Zache (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And where do you see a comment like "professionally offended" on this scale? I actually would love to hear numbers ... Kritzolina (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also don't see any satisfactory statement. You explicitly pointed out that you were not personally involved, but you are also not an admin who is generally active in blocking or unblocking users. What was your business in removing this block, overriding the rationale of an admin who is generally active in blocking or unblocking users? --Krd 09:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocking an active user should not be made without discussion. Default position should be unblock, not block? Generally I find it again odd that blocking an active user without discussion is ok, but unblocking is not. You are correct that I am not a active admin, but I have done my share of blocking vandals in other projects. —kallerna (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with Krd. --A.Savin 15:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1 to A.Savin. At least thank you for the apology, kallerna. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you were wondering why I'm spending so much time on this issue – well, that's because I want Commons to be a place where admins actually use their tools properly; not a place where admins get a snarky layer of protection for wheel-warring. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears there is no more feedback, so it's time to conclude? --Krd 15:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it seems like this thread isn't going anywhere. Killarnee (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Krd and Killarnee: It looks to me like immediately below there is a pretty strong consensus that we should have a discussion on possible deadminship for User:Kallerna. - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't disagree. Krd 20:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Yes, anyway 14 support + 3 oppose votes would be a successful result if this were an RfA, so despite weak participation we can assume consensus. Pinging SHB2000 and Jeff G. As said, I would support desysop although this is kind of a borderline case to me -- which is the reason that this time I wouldn't like to start such a desysop procedure myself -- however only Kallerna and no one else we owe the fact that this actually pretty minor issue had to come as far; so yes, after that half-hearted apologies I still stand by my opinion that Kallerna is a miscast as a Commons admin. Actually, it would be WAY better if Kallerna would spare us the timewaste and resign voluntarily. Thanks --A.Savin 22:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:39, 4 January 2024 (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 GMG ^talk 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]
Neutral I agree with Jmabel above. I'm not there yet as far as thinking Kallerna should be de-sysopped, but the de-adminship conversation should be allowed to move forward. Abzeronow (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I have been reading this entire conversation for the last one hour and I could not find a "fair acknowledgement" without ifs and buts. KoH makes a sensible statement that this is kind of a rare incident but as SHB2000 has noted a clear acknowledgment from Kallerna is missing, plus per Krd. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 13:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I didn't originally think it justified action outside of a slap on the wrist, if even. ~~But if Killarnee supports it themselves then I don't really see any reason not to take the tools away.~~ Plus as others have pointed out it's not like they have acknowledged the issue. It's weird how unwilling admins are to admit they made a mistake sometimes. Totally a self-own. So whatever. Just take the tools away and be done with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me? Killarnee (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Killarnee: It appears @Adamant1's mistake. Kallerna and Killarnee are too closely sounding names. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I meant Kallerna. My bad. I struck that part of my comment. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support despite Kallerna's comment above. Yann (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I can understand that A.Savin's block for Karelj's comment in the FPC nomination appeared harsh. Probably few admins would have blocked here. Still, the comment was disrespectful and I understand the desire to enforce a more civil communication within the FPC nominations. Few admins ever went ahead to enforce civility in FPC nominations. As Karelj had been warned before, this did not come entirely unexpected. It should be noted that A.Savin was not involved in the discussion of this FPC nomination but kallerna was with a comment that was at least as disrespectful as that of Karelj. The subsequent unblock came without discussion despite being involved in the discussion of the FPC nomination. Remarkably, this is the very only sysadmin action by Kallerna blocking or unblocking any user since becoming an admin in 2009. In the unblock comment Kallerna asks Silencing user who do not agree with you? while giving much reason to question their own motives behind the unblock. All this could be a singular event during a long tenure as admin. Then, however, we need a clear path forward which allows us to hope that this remains singular. Comments like I'm here to contribute to the project, not to discuss with trolls are not helpful in this regard. Eventually, Kallerna apologizes for it but not without recommending to focus on more positive and constructive matters while finding it rather odd that most participants here see controversial block with rude comments less harmful to the project than unblocking active editor. I do not find this convincing as it appears half-hearted and comes without any statements regarding a future approach to resolve such conflicts. I think a regular process where we see whether Kallerna has still the trust of our community as admin is warranted. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support An admin getting de-admin for admin abuse?...if only there were people with balls on that other project.....and they call us the inferior project..--Ste moc 23:36, 3 January 2024 (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) (assign permissions)

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:

Does not match the page name on Wikipedia (including Wikidata), which can confuse readers even more.
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:

Category:Tan Tiong-ho was renamed to Category:Chen Jhong-he.
Category:N̂g Tiâu-khîm was renamed to Category:Huang Chao-qin.
Category:Lī Hik-jio̍k was renamed to Category:Lu Ho-jo.
Category:Tân Hông-goân was renamed to Category:Chen Feng-yuan.
Category:Ngôo Sin-îng was renamed to Category:Wu Hsin-jung.
Category:Ia̍p Tô was renamed to Category:Ye Tao.

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. --TX55^TALK 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. --TX55^TALK 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. --TX55^TALK 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. --TX55^TALK 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. --TX55^TALK 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. --TX55^TALK 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）。

--TX55^TALK 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.

--TX55^TALK 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]

地下高雄，我還是不明白你的意思。如果你是想告訴我，經由臺灣閩南語羅馬字拼音方案連字符使用規則去學習，然後就可以找到那些用閩南語發音而命名的分類名稱，那麼我還有二個問題：

(1) ē ú 這些符號是要用哪種輸入法如何打字出來？

(2) 遇到那種維基百科沒有，那要如何知道commons.wikimedia已經有存在分類？

這二個問題，尤其是(2)是最令我頭疼的，因為我們並非是以閩南語為母語，因此當要針對分類名稱搜尋時，無論是用中文，或者是用英文字母 (也就是你說將閩南語羅馬化)，就會發生搜尋引擎找不到，這種情況又沒有維基百科提供跨語言連結，我們肯定是不知道你們已經有建立分類。或許我舉Tē-ki-tsú這個例子是錯了，不過你可能不知道的是，這裡commons.wikimedia是獨自運作，並沒有與維基百科同步。正是因為沒有同步，這需要有人手動將維基百科與commons.wikimedia連結，這種連結就是我指的跨語言連結。我言下之意是，手動就表示會有時間上空窗期，所以當我們在commons.wikimedia這裡先建立分類，卻還沒有人去將維基百科連結，或者是維基百科還沒有人建立條目或分類時，這一段空窗期就會形成我說 (2) 問題。因此，你們相對於我們，就好像是明眼人看著盲人在走路，我們瞎找分類，也不知道你們有沒有建立分類，我們是要如何做到你說「the best practice is to make an effort to understand and maintain respect」?--125.230.93.95 16:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

地下高雄，不是我不尊重你，而是我提出的問題是真實發生的問題，只有將問題解決才是實際。因此，我與其像盲人那樣花時間找分類，倒不如將問題簡單化，所以我昨天在這裡有提出解決方法，就是你們繼續用，而我用英文字找不到分類，那麼我就自己另外建立分類。我知道這麼做可能會同時出現二個一樣的分類，但我沒辦法，因為我找不到，而我又不知道我要找的分類所使用閩南語是怎麼寫的，相同分類只能交給熟悉閩南語的人去請他們合併。--125.230.93.95 16:58, 27 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]

Céline Husetowski WMFr[edit]

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

Céline Husetowski WMFr (talk • contribs • block log • filter log)
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plaque Wikimedia France.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Support-WM-France.png

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]
Thanks for your fascinating reply @Poslovitch:
You state that «most of the employees are encouraged to contribute to Wikimedia projects», which is to me as absurd as a hospital director saying that most of their staff are “encouraged” to attend medical school. Why the heck is WMFr even considering to hire (i.e., personally support with donation funds), even as floormopper, anyone who is not an established WMF editor?

And then you presume to teach about COM:AGF: This is not an ordinary newbie who forgot to close a bracket, this is a user with an authoritative-sounding username asking for content removal on an absurd premise.

The fact that you make light of this is worrying. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Tuvalkin. As a board member of WMFr, I can give you some answers. Your worries are legit: it is a subject commonly discussed regarding the hiring process. I consider that the main skills we’re looking for in a floormopper position are the mopping skills, not the knowledge of how to contribute to projects, even less of some rules on a Wikimedia project. Same for other positions. Indeed, I think it takes more times to obtain the skills needed for the position than the time needed to know how to contribute to projects. Thus, to know how Commons works is not a necessary condition to be hired. Furthermore, as a contributor with some experience, I was not aware of that specific Commons rule. If Commons is the place for the affiliates to upload their files, then it seems understandable that they may want to manage these files, and delete the outdated ones. I don’t think this is an absurd premise. You could have just explained that Commons keep the old logos, and not accuse @Céline Husetowski WMFr of vandalism. Or, explain that Commons is media repository with archives, not a cloud for the affiliates, and if affiliates want to manage their files, Commons is not the place to do so. Cheers, Cédric Tarbouriech (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cédric Tarbouriech: addressing a few different things: (1) I totally understand that a certain percentage of any organization are going to be hired very much from outside. I do think, though, that the entire Wikimedia community is still suffering from the fact that when WMF began really hiring up a decade or so ago there was, if anything, an aversion to hiring people with experience as Wikimedia editors. I think it's improved a lot in the last 6 years or so, but there are a lot of scars. (2) As far as I can think, Commons treats content generated from WMF and its affiliates exactly the way we treat any other content. I would presume that it is in the spirit of the movement that, insofar as possible, WMF affiliates release the content they generate under free licenses, making Commons the obvious place to host media files. (3) Wikimedia Commons is one of the longest-standing of the WMF sister projects. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that it is comparable in importance to Wikidata, and that those stand only behind Wikipedia itself in importance (and probably only the Wikipedias in a dozen or so languages really have that greater importance). I assume that someone in a communications role at a major affiliate would understand the basic policies of Wikipedia: e.g. that articles are supposed to be from a neutral point of view rather than promotional, that we try to avoid conflict-of-interest editing, that history is as important a part of Wikipedia content as describing the present state of things. I take it from what you are saying that is not nearly as true for the basics of Commons. It is a bit surprising to hear that "as a contributor with some experience" you didn't put together that CC licenses are irrevocable, and that we don't delete files that describe the past rather than the present.

Do understand that what brought this to AN/U, was that this was wrong enough that it led two of us to wonder whether this was someone falsely impersonating Céline, rather than being Céline herself. If an ordinary user had made this mistake, we would have just explained policy. What made this an administrative issue was the possibility that this was someone posing as someone else. - Jmabel ! talk 00:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Céline Husetowski WMFr: Hi, and welcome. We keep ancient logos as in scope. They are helpful in logo history sections of Wikipedia articles (even those not yet written as such), and can also be helpful elsewhere. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One other remark: if this is more of a "style guide" issue, probably a style guide belongs somewhere outside of Commons, most likely either on meta or on the affiliate's own site if they have one. - Jmabel ! talk 00:55, 28 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) block user

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]

ヨンヨンヨンジ[edit]

ヨンヨンヨンジ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user not only uploads copyvios, he/she also claims, that they are free, because they were AI created. That's more than just image stealing, that's blatant license forgery. A second opinion would be nice. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Last warning sent. Yann (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maroof Rachyal[edit]

User: Maroof Rachyal (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Only spams and uploads selfies to support the spam.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 15:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done: Thanks for reporting this, Jeff G.. The account has been indef'd. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AFBorchert: Thanks! — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Socks of IvanRamonTrillos[edit]

Please block Sbshshib (talk · contribs) and BX XBXBVDV (talk · contribs). They both reuploaded File:Oscareduardo10 Logo.png and therefore are socks of globally locked spammer IvanRamonTrillos (talk · contribs). Thanks. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 03:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done: Thanks for reporting this, Kacamata. Both accounts and IvanRamonTrillos are obvious sockpuppets of LTA case Oscareduardo10 (talk · contribs). I've indef'd the accounts. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, there are far more accounts involved in this case of LTA, see now Category:Sockpuppets of Oscareduardo10 for the sockpuppets that are associated with Oscareduardo10 and which were active at Commons. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oscareduardo10/Archive for more background and CU confirmations. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AFBorchert: Thanks for the block and for supplementing m:srg#Global lock for socks of locked IvanRamonTrillos! — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @AFBorchert and @Jeff G.. I found another sock Clgucjfsls (talk · contribs). They just uploaded File:Oscareduardo10 Logo.png. Can this file be protected against recriation? Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 20:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kacamata: This wouldn't help. The socks have used other filenames as well. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AFBorchert I see. Thanks. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 23:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sbshshib (talk · contribs), BX XBXBVDV (talk · contribs), and Clgucjfsls (talk · contribs) have been locked on 10:42, 1 January 2024. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kacamata: You're welcome. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User: Suryam FM[edit]

Suryam FM (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user uploads copyvios images. Admin can take action. Antan O 13:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Already warned by Jeff. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Marginataen[edit]

Marginataen (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Marginataen has uploaded a large number of images of people associated with a Danish political party. None of the ones I have looked at have metadata, although Marginataen claims to be the photographer in each case. It is possible that they travel around Denmark taking photos at party events, but if so, they should upload the original images with metadata to prove their authorship.

Some are clearly not there own work. For example, File:Peter Seier Christensen og Nigel Farage, 2018.jpg comes from Facebook, specifically here. Marginataen uploaded the original in April but recently uploaded a slightly cropped version without metadata.

The Marginataen account has been indef blocked on English and Danish Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. One of the sockpuppets, Zeitgeistu was recently involved in uploading AI "upscaled" images to Commons. It looks like the Marginataen account may have been doing the same thing, See File:Jevgenij Prigosjin, 2023.jpg. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is correct that am I currently blocked on the English Wikipedia. I don't get what is wrong about experimenting with the possibilities of AI image enhancement. I'll comment some more tomorrow. Marginataen (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marginataen Some of the concerns with "AI image enhancement" were discussed here after you uploaded an "AI enhanced" portrait of Adolph Hitler. There is nothing wrong with experimenting with such tools, but when you upload the results to Commons without identifying them as "AI enhanced", that may be a problem. Personally, I am more concerned about the possibility that your uploads are be copyright violations. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my view: "that may be a problem" => "that is a major problem". - Jmabel ! talk 01:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I'm real tired. Pls give me 48 hours to write a more through response where I'll commtent on File:Peter Seier Christensen og Nigel Farage, 2018.jpg and more. In the meantime, you might want to read this. Marginataen (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marginataen: I suspect that was the wrong link. You linked Steinsplitterbot archiving a bunch of threads. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it was not. Scroll down to the discussion about "File:Lars Boje Mathiesen, 2023.jpg" Marginataen (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(for anyone trying to follow this, this is a more useful link to the same content. - Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marginataen I am sorry to hear that you are tired. I am feeling a little tired today, myself.

Can you please explain how on 14 September 2023, you were able to upload a larger (less cropped) version of the File:Pernille Vermund - Ny Borgerlige.jpg image that Ulla Højgaard uploaded as their own work on 9 May 2019.

Can you also explain how you appear to be a photographer but are unable to provide the original images with metadata, even for very recent pictures? Thanks. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Considering their history of copyvios both here and on da.wiki (including a number of deleted files on this project spanning years), and their refusal to explain how they took these photos but don't have metadata, I have nominated all of their 'self' uploads for deletion here. Unless they're able to explain themselves, I'd also support an indef block on this project. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, many thanks to @Jmabel provide at better link .I will refer a lot of what I otherwise would have written here to that linked discussion as I really this is just a repetition of that one. As stated there, I regreabbly damaged by credibility by uploading files not belonging to me. When Marchjuly pointed this out to me, I began adapting. With regard to File:Vermund, juni 2018.jpg, I was just a less cropped/higher resolution version of an imaag by Ulla Højgaard. If you go to that file, I under "Source" explicitly wrote (in Danish), "I didn't create this file, but assume it's okay to publish, as it's just the uncropped version of a file already released under a free license on Commons (see link)". I got it from a now removed blog post by Pernille Vermund about Lars Løkke on party's website (https://app.apsis.one/invalid-link). There is no way in which I would be able to prove this but you can see here in a non-removed blog post where a similar image is used or here where she uses a cropped version of the image in a Facebook post. Again, I never claimed ownership or authorship over that picture. Marginataen (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marginataen So Ulla Højgaard isn't another of your accounts? I notice that you seem to have accidentally linked to some kind of marketing company instead of the party website. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it is absolutely not another account of mine. I simply found a better version of the file she uploaded. I wrote that I assumed (Danish: antager) that is was ok because it was just a better version of that file. If that is not the case just delete it. If she uploaded the original file legitimately that has absolutely nothing to do with me. I explicitly write that I wasn't the author of that file. Marginataen (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marginataen: I don't have any opinion as to whether you're using multiple accounts, but I don't think that the statement I was just a less cropped/higher resolution version of an imaag by Ulla Højgaard. If you go to that file, I under "Source" explicitly wrote (in Danish), "I didn't create this file, but assume it's okay to publish, as it's just the uncropped version of a file already released under a free license on Commons (see link)" is correct when it comes to Creative Commons licenses and Commons. My understanding is that the copyright holder has the right to release their work under a resolution of their choosing and of a size of their choosing; so, if a copyright holder releases a low-resolution crop of their work under a Creative Commons license that Commons accepts, then it's only OK to upload that file to Commons either at the same or a lower resolution and at the same or smaller size. I don't think it's OK to "un-crop" files and "re-resolution" files unless the license clearly allows it. In other words, it's not OK to upload a full-sized uncropped high resolution version of a cropped low resolution file unless the full-sized uncropped high resolution version has also been released under an acceptable free license by its copyright holder. I believe it's possible for a copyright holder to release a cropped low-resolution version of their work under one license (e.g. CC-by-sa-4.0), while at the same time releasing an uncropped higher resolution of the same work under a different license (e.g. CC-by-NC-ND) I think this is one of the reasons that Commons encourages those uploading their "own work" to upload uncropped full-sized high resolution versions of their work because then cropping or reducing the resolution of the work doesn't become an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, that makes sense which using the word "assume" also kind of implies :) In that case, just delete the better version Marginataen (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could we centralise the dicussion to either this threat or to here? Marginataen (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Ritaspina[edit]

Ritaspina (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user uploaded several copyvios. I left a final warning in their talkpage yesterday and today they uploaded the same picture that was deleted yesterday. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 16:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Blocked for a week. File deleted. Yann (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:XDDD F YTP[edit]

XDDD F YTP (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user seems to love uploading copyrighted material. His uploads were removed several times. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Warned. Everything already deleted. Yann (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Socks VasylGenesis and Наталія11[edit]

VasylGenesis (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Наталія11 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Same uploaded files

And other files is cause suspicion of authorship. Микола Василечко (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Last warning sent to VasylGenesis, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by VasylGenesis‎. Any more such upload should lead to a block. Yann (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I deleted 2 files by Наталія11. All other uploads are of high resolution with EXIF data, so they should be OK. No upload since 2017. Yann (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Ironplex[edit]

Ironplex (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is starting several DR as retaliation against Jeff G. Pure disruptive move. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 20:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann Thanks. Can you close all the DRs? Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 20:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann and Kacamata: Thanks! I closed the rest of the DRs. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ironplex. I am now convinced that Ironplex doesn't have the competence to participate here in a collegial manner. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 21:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeing the comments in the DR, I indef. that account and deleted all files. Not here to contribute constructively. Yann (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: Thanks again! — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 21:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yann deleted one of his nonsense DRs, should an admin delete others too? A09 (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@A09: I don't' think that's necessary. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons as promotion by two accounts[edit]

user:Iranireza34 User:AmirRezaei2024 use commons as promotional page please delete all these uploads these uploads

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of these images are screenshots that might have some value and thus fit in COM:SCOPE. However, copyright permissions are necessary. I have tagged these files as "No permission". If no valid permission is sent to VRT in due time, the files will be deleted. Some files like this File:Amirreza Borzooei.jpg, File:امیررضا برزویی.jpg and File:امیررضا برزویی چقاگلانی.jpg are not out-of-scope (albeit they might be used for promotion elsewhere). These image have a valid metadata and would likely be useful. Images like File:Japan karate1 img.jpg seem to be quick copyright violation. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 08:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AmirRezaei2024 should be considered. There does appear a connection between the two accounts? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 09:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given what I believe seeing contributions of both the accounts doing is their promoting Amirreza Borzooei. AmirRezaei2024 is the oldest account. The files uploaded include several as DR'ed on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AmirRezaei2024. File:Amirreza Borzooei.jpg uploaded by Iranireza34 and File:Amirreza,Borzooei.jpg uploaded by AmirRezaei2024, and both claim own work. Accounts are not too-active and I believe running a CU-check would be a waste of time. Behaviourally these accounts appear to be socks. I wouldn't in such a case trust the high resolution photos (with metadata) uploaded by Iranireza34 as original. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 09:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AmirRezaei2024 (talk · contribs) has been warned and all uploads deleted. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AmirRezaei2024 (talk · contribs) uploaded the first pictures in April 2021. Later, Iranireza34 (talk · contribs) became active in January/February 2022 with unsuccessful attempts to submit an article at en:wp (see this draft and this log). AmirRezaei2024 (talk · contribs) retried this in November 2023 and had still no success but Cclite (talk · contribs) created an article afterwards. I went through the uploads of Iranireza34 and found two images that were also published at Instagram, I've submitted them for speedy deletion. The remaining uploads are covered by this deletion request. Searches for permissions at VRT were not successful. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:1maneofficalmusic12[edit]

Hello, 1maneofficalmusic12 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user makes his promotion on Commons by writing his biography, uploading a PDF version of it, uploading personal pictures, and by vandalising the page of File:Disambig grey.svg and User_talk:1maneofficalmusic12. Is it possible to make him understand he needs to stop? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Blocked as spammer. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:LukasG2005[edit]

Can an admin please take a look at LukasG2005 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user? The licensing of their uploads isn't only questionable, but their motives may be as well given that they tried to use File:Bill Gates with Epstein.webp as the main infobox image of en:Bill Gates, File:Man smoking.jpg as the main infobox image of en:Conor McGregor, and File:Daniel Larson.jpg as the main infobox image of en:Jack Shore. For reference, the account has already been blocked locally on English Wikipedia for vandalism because of the aforementioned edits and others like this; so, it seems highly unlikely they will be a net-positive to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took all the photos LukasG2005 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What’s the problem LukasG2005 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How, when and where did you take those pictures? And how did they end up in major media outlets? Kritzolina (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Last warning sent. Yann (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukasG2005: Making a screenshot of someone else's video on TikTok or Instagram does not make you the author and does not give you authority to grant license to the media. See COM:DW. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Kannansivaram[edit]

Kannansivaram (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is already warned for copyvio and the user continues to upload same type of image and the contribution seems COM:HOST and COM:ADVERT. I just report here for admin intervention. ~AntanO4task (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Blocked for a week, copyvios deleted. Some of your deletion requests are {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thearmanevrahim[edit]

Hello, The user Thearmanevrahim uploaded a bunch of pictures. It is not the first time. Would it be possible to make him understand it is not ok, please? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]