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

Latest comment: 3 days ago67 comments23 people in discussion

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]

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]

User:Roman Ivanovych Kovalchuk edit

Latest comment: 21 hours ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Copyright violation: from video

File:Staw Muhavka.png - deleted 13:45, December 9, 2023 Túrelio
reloaded after deletion File:Stawky Muchawka.png - deleted 23:48, December 9, 2023 Polarlys
reloaded after deletion File:Каскад ставків в селі Мухавка. 6-й став.png - deleted 13:34, December 10, 2023 Polarlys
reloaded after deletion File:Каскад ставків в селі Мухавка. 5-й став.png - deleted ???

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]

User: SK Jahid Islam edit

Latest comment: 7 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

SK Jahid Islam (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Sockpuppet of Rishad 2522, long-time vandal and uploader of copyrighted material. See also the report on 103.97.162.97, belonging to the same user, which is still on this page. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Indefinitely blocked. Uploads are deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:OrlandoR503 edit

Latest comment: 4 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

OrlandoR503 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Lots of frivolous deletion requests, often of files COM:INUSE. Sure, there are somewhat random examples of files that might have copyright problems, but that doesn't make their approach to deletion requests valid. One example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bandera De Concepcion De Oriente, La Union, El Salvador.gif. User contributions. I'm not suggesting a block at this stage, but a warning in Spanish would be good. My Spanish is survival-level, so I'm not the best one to do it, but I'll post something to their user talk page now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convenience link: User:OrlandoR503 - Jmabel ! talk 20:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@OrlandoR503: al menos, no es aceptable nominar un archivo para remover con un una justificación sin sentido ("FDFGHJKL"), ni sea "Ya No Me Sirve" mucho mejor. Los archivos no quedan aquí para servir un usuario en particular. - Jmabel ! talk 20:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Last warning for vandalism sent. DRs closed. Feel free to block. Yann (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArnaudDarko edit

Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

The user re-uploads the same file over and over, ignoring the last warning given by Mdaniels5757. Günther Frager (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done indef-blocked. They have appear to have uploaded the same copyvio half a dozen times, and the account has no other meaningful activity. - Jmabel ! talk 01:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Permanent Block request for violation of Topic Ban by A1Cafel edit

Latest comment: 4 days ago18 comments12 people in discussion

1. Originally, in 2021, A1Cafel was blocked against Deletion Requests (DRs) here. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 93#A1Cafel and yet more abusive deletions

2. In August of 2022, the topic ban was partially lifted.

Regular DRs are OK, however, their was an exception for speedy deletions. Quote:

"Tags for speedy deletions and timed deletions such as missing permission etc. may still not be applied though. (emphasis added)

3. There are no written exceptions to this Speedy Deletion topic ban.

4. A1Cafel has not appealed their topic ban.

5. A1Cafel violated their topic ban by a Speedy Deletion request here: [[3]]

I had made this a regular deletion request (with comment) here: [[4]]

A1Cafel's "Second Appeal on the Topic Ban" here: [[5]]

Closing Admin. wrote,

"Per this discussion, A1Cafel is now allowed again to create regular deletion requests (DR). Tags for speedy deletions and timed deletions such as missing permission etc. may still not be applied though. If after three months from today, A1Cafel has shown that their newly created DRs are constructive and successful, the overall topic ban may be appealed at this board. Such an appeal shall include the notification of all participants in the original TBAN discussion. De728631 (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)"

I cannot find any appeal since 31 August 2022, like that offered above.

A1Cafel was automatically notified on his talk page, when I changed the speedy deletion into a regular DR with the following comment:

"Is this user allowed by community consensus to do speedy deletions now?"

A1Cafel Without any comment, they removed the DR notification from their talk page. [[6]]

Also, as of today, there has been no comment by A1Cafel at the regular DR nomination page, where the Speedy Deletion had been converted to a regular DR by me. [[7]]

Additionally, this August, Administrator @Mdaniels5757 wrote, ::::::A1Cafel was previously blocked by me in January for two weeks for CheckUser-confirmed logged out editing in violation of his topic ban." Here: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 36#Block review: A1Cafel

and he wrote,

"My block" "I noticed that an IP tagged File:Geoffrey-Pyatt.jpg for deletion per CSD F8 as a duplicate of File:Amb. Geoffrey Pyatt portrait.jpg. As it was not an exact or scaled-down duplicate (but a crop), I declined the deletion request. I noticed that A1Cafel had uploaded the image the day before. This is, in my opinion, obviously A1Cafel. Looking at the IP's range (Special:Contributions/219.78.0.0/16), I noticed that there were multiple other edits that appear to be A1Cafel, including untagging his own file for speedy deletion without attracting the scrutiny that doing so logged-in would provide. There may be others on another IP range.

Accordingly, I blocked A1Cafel. I determined a block of one month was appropriate, given that the previous block for this was two weeks.''"

and the concluding discussion, quoted here:

"Discussion

I think a block was reasonable given the evidence provided. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
This is their third block this year, plus the topic ban, plus numerous admonishments for overzealous behavior. If anything, I think this block is shorter than warranted. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
"Ban evasion, please create an account to edit" I dont think someone block evading should be asked to create a new account. Odd block reason. --Trade (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)"

I appologize in advance if I included too much text, missed relevant facts or other flaws, as this is my first such request. --Ooligan (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems like massive overkill; was the intent of the ban to actually prevent the user from requesting that files they just uploaded be deleted because they were misuploaded?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like you're right. What should they have done instead? Is there a board on the Administrators' noticeboard where they could have requested speedy deletion? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the harm in invoking COM:CSD#G7 on own work within 7 days? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait, I checked and the user tried to have another's upload File:Geoffrey-Pyatt.jpg deleted to replace it with their own upload File:Amb. Geoffrey Pyatt portrait.jpg via COM:CSD#G8. It wasn't an exact duplicate, and in such cases Admins delete the newest upload anyway. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 17:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal: Clarify topic ban edit

I think that the intent of the community's speedy deletion topic ban was to ban them from requesting speedy deletion on files uploaded by other users. Nowhere in the discussions was there anybody who complained about the user tagging their own files for deletion. Yes, based on the written word of the TBAN, this is a violation of a topic ban, but I don't think that we ought block the user for this. As such, I propose that the text of the topic ban be modified to additionally state that A1Cafel's topic ban does not prevent them from tagging their own uploads for speedy deletion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, if all that happened was an {{SD|G7}} of their own upload, I wouldn't even want to discourage that. It's basic housekeeping. - Jmabel ! talk 01:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support As is obvious, I have long seen A1Cafel as a negative to the project and would welcome a total ban. However that should not be for G7s on their own uploads, even under the current topic ban on DRs. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Calling him a net negative to Commons is a bit of a hyperbole Trade (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. This is obvious to me. And therefore, the current block should be ended. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This is definitely obvious. Abzeronow (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Partial support for G7-eligible files only (i.e. within a week of upload). I have seen them learn new copyright rules and overgeneralize from what they learned, so I don't think they should be able to tag their own months-old uploads as copyvio; they should continue to open a DR for such cases. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Certainly. This is strictly about G7. Pinging @King of Hearts, is there somewhere the wording was unclear about that? - Jmabel ! talk 20:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - @Jmabel and Red-tailed hawk: Read literally, "A1Cafel's topic ban does not prevent them from tagging their own uploads for speedy deletion" means that they would be allowed to tag their own uploads as F1, which we don't want to allow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @King of Hearts: Has A1Cafel inappropriately tagging their own uploads as copyvio been a problem in the past? My understanding is that the problem was how they were applying deletion-related items to photos uploaded by others. I'm fine with limiting it to only being G7s, but I am curious as to if it needs to be limited that much. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support We should also make this the default for all deletion request topic bans. G7 should still be possible unless it is explicitly included in the topic ban. GPSLeo (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adv Sh Mishra and Ansh2512 edit

Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Users: Adv Sh Mishra (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user and Ansh2512 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Adv Sh Mishra was closed as Stale. Please evaluate on the basis of behavior. The users have perpetrated crosswiki spam. The master uploaded a few selfies and wrote a preliminary autobiography at his user page (now blanked and tagged G10), then a more comprehensive one at en:Draft:Adv Sh Mishra (now deleted}. The puppet then uploaded another selfie and tried to repeat the autobiography at the master's user page and complained about hitting Special:AbuseFilter/245 and Special:AbuseFilter/186 in COM:FILTERT#Report by Ansh2512 using these edits.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Both blocked. Yann (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yann: Thanks! — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Labicanense edit

Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Reason for reporting: This user is a puppet of e.g. User:Livioandronico2013 and User:Fiat 500e. Same camera and same kind of spamming behaviour, i.e. replacing old images with their own on Wikipedia articles without looking for consent. For example, see this version history. Disembodied Soul (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Dr Selvaganesh edit

Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dr Selvaganesh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user continuously uploaded his personal images. Antan O 09:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Warned, file deleted. Yann (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:DMLSAQ edit

Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

DMLSAQ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user File:Irena Ponaroshku 2023.jpg is probably re-uploaded after warning and deletion, several more copyvios detected, other uploads are also without metadata. All are from articles created as undisclosed paid editing. Komarof (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Last warning sent, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DMLSAQ‎. Yann (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:RAGlobal2 edit

Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

RAGlobal2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user - uploading a series of self-promotional PDFs. Omphalographer (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Indef., spam only after warning, file deleted. Yann (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Sleevachan edit

Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

This is a known sock, blocked on EnWiki, who keeps uploading deleted images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Esthappanos Bar Geevarghese). They then add the images to EnWiki as an IP. Please indef. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Indef., all files deleted. I also blocked Phillypaboy123 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information), probable sock, and for massive copyright violations. Yann (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brilliant, thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Guilherme delara edit

Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Guilherme delara (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) keep uploaded unsourced out-of-scope pictures. They were warned, but kept doing it. They also likely have several socks. Accounts like Guilherme delara 20 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) and GUI DELARA (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) are en:WP:DUCKS to me. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 21:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Deleted all the uploads and blocked all the accounts. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:地下高雄 edit

Latest comment: 14 hours ago19 comments5 people in discussion

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]

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]

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]

User:Rione I Monti edit

Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Rione I Monti (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user is a puppet of e.g. User:Livioandronico2013, User:Fiat 500e and User:Labicanense. Same camera and same kind of spamming their own photos all over Wikipedia. After being blocked user reappears with a new account. Disembodied Soul (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ChrisWx edit

Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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]

M.Bitton edit

Latest comment: 36 minutes ago18 comments4 people in discussion

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]

TylerKutschbach sock opening several deletion discussions (User:GraydenCat) edit

Latest comment: 16 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. User:GraydenCat is already checkuser blocked on English Wikipedia for being a sock of TylerKutschbach (CentAuth). This sock came to my attention here via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Florida Presidential Election Results 1888.png, which ironically had also been nominated by Tyler. Curbon7 (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Person 18.0 Persistent disruptive editing and tag misuse edit

Latest comment: 12 hours ago8 comments5 people in discussion

This editor is tagging all instances of images of the letter Z and all images of the Belarusian flag with Template:Russian militarism symbol, as well as tagging images of members of the Kim dynasty as communist symbols. I reverted, and this editor left the following message on my talk page page:

Note: there is a following badge supporting Russia in its invasion of Ukraine, so the letter Z is considered a symbol of Putin's hatred, including the flag of Belarus and a Ukrainian province occupied by Russia, although However, in some other files, it is only a reminder to avoid confusion by the Russian Armed Forces

I removed the comment, and the editor reverted me. Twice. On my removal of their weird comment from my own Talk page. Their edit description for the second time: hey, just a reminder here, there's nothing to delete

Clear from this person's edit history and talk page that they are a persistent disruption. Zanahary (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know, but you also have to think of banned political symbols that have been recorded on Wikimedia Commons Person 18.0 (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The editor has begun reverting my reverts. [[File:Kim Dynasty.png]], a file with no symbols whatsoever, now has a communist symbol tag again. Zanahary (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have given the user a temporary 1 day block to stop the edit war. Gbawden (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don’t think the edit war is the problem. The problem is marking all instances of the letter Z as a symbol of Russian military aggression, and photographs of the leaders of communist countries as communist symbols. Zanahary (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Truly. In Greece, in the early 1970s, that same letter would have been a symbol of resistance to the fascist regime of the colonels. - Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be noted that I found this user’s edits because I saw that they had changed the Twemoji template so that every single Twitter emoji would be marked as a communist symbol. Zanahary (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zanahary: That is just plain wrong. They are blocked for a day for edit warring after warnings. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 21:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weird behavior by Aka edit

Latest comment: 2 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

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]

Add topic