Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU

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

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

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


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


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


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

Archives
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 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
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
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
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

Note

  • 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.
  • It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned. {{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.

Systemic bias and no source maps showing false and misleading information on German Wikipedia

I'd like to raise an issue regarding, the following three maps (all related to each other) Verbreitungsgebiet der deutschen Sprache.PNG [1] (original map) upoladed by an editor who was blocked due to, quote "POV from doubtful sources, playing down Nazism. Harms Wikipedia (POV aus zweifelhaften Quellen, Verharmlosung des Nationalsozialismus. Schadet der Wikipedia)." Also, the next two maps were based on the first map and cite it as the only reference source File:German standard varieties.png [2], File:Sprachvarietäten Deutsch.png [3]. The three maps appear on 70 Wikipedia pages in different languages.

This is an issue regarding possible violations of neutrality and bias exhibited by a couple of editors and admins that took place when I made corrections to the maps, which showed areas of alleged German speaking minorities in contemporary Eastern Europe. The corrections I made were based on reliable reference sources cited in Wikipedia articles on this topic. Currently, the original map has no verifiable reference sources to back any up the claims it presents, and shows German speaking minorities in places such as Poland, Czech Rep. and Slovakia where there is none (backed up by references such as the Polish Government census, etc.). I'm concerned that this misrepresentation of facts peddles to German nationalist claims in Eastern Europe, and Wikipedia is being used to spread misinformation, depicting alleged German minorities in areas and cities where they simply do not exist.

This information can be verified easily by accessing Wikipedia articles on this topic and reviewing the reference citations which disprove the false claims the maps currently presents:

  • German minority in Poland [4]
  • Carpathian Germans [5]
  • Germans in the Czech Republic [6]

Also, I'm concerned by the behavior of some of the admins form the German Wikipedia (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Verbreitungsgebiet der deutschen Sprache.PNG), who do acknowledge that the map peddels questionable information, however ignore my request to just upload a corrected version of the map (which is supported by other editors on the image Talk Page), and blocked the upload option. Also, one of the admins took the discussion away from the image Talk Page to a German Wikipedia forum de:Diskussion:Ostgebiete des Deutschen Reiches, in which I can't contribute to since I don't speak German. Unfortunately, this comes across as potential bias, which in effect stifled any action to correct the highly controversial and unsourced claims made by the three maps, and hits at Wikipedia's credibility, where bad players upload false or un-true information, which then spreads across many articles in different languages. --E-960 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about your forum shopping.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff G., it's not forum shopping, I have objections to how my request is being handled and how I'm being treated by editors and admins form the German Wikipedia project. Maps get updated all the time, to block that option and throw up technicalities to justify it, is highly questionable. Also, why was the discussion about the map diverted form the English language Talk Page of the image to a German Wikipedia form. I'm the user that raised this issue and in effect now was removed form the debate (I don't speak German). That's bias... so I don't appreciate these red-harring statements accusing me of "forum shopping", this is a legitimate issue which I would like other admins not just form the German Wikipedia to have a look at. --E-960 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a general problem with maps and DE Wiki users. Often e.g. false own work claims on obvious DW, without disclosing the source of the base map, and then canvassing in DE Wiki to get a lot of German keep votes to a DR. (example) - Jcb (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is just one small example of how misleading this map is, it marks the Polish city of Łódź (written in German on map: Lodsch) with a big blue area as if there is a sizable German minority in the city and the surrounding areas, yet according to the Polish census (see image talk page) there is only 263 individual who declared themselves to be of German ethnicity in a city of 700,000 inhabitants and region of over 2,000,000 people. --E-960 (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please list cases of "often false own work claims". And what is the source of your expertise in map-making? NNW 18:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I can say, the example above (based on government census) clearly shows how misleading that map is, that can be easily verified. --E-960 (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask you. Please don't change my edits. Maps made by Postmann Michael are known for being problematic. Unfortunately no one takes efforts to lists new sources (outside any WP articles) so that new and better maps can be made. I asked for it several times but I do not have the time to look for them myself. NNW 18:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I only added a space, so your text is not aligned with the earlier comment. Anyway, these are government census data which show that there is no German minority in all those places. --E-960 (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical claims based on E-960 not wanting to understand COM:OVERWRITE and that Commons does not take a stand on these issues. Frankly, the claims of bias are insulting. The map is currently upload protected, because E-960 edit warred previously, instead of discussing any changes. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. Jcb, when I opened a Deletion Request, it was closed by Sebari an admin form the German Wikipedia (link: [7]) minutes after it was initiated (opened at 15:17, 17 July 2018 and closed down at 15:32, 17 July 2018), without anyone voting on it. That kind of behavior falls in line with your earlier example. Lacking neutrality and exhibiting potential bias. Here we have maps which are used in over 70 articles, which show dubious and false claims, and nothing is being done about it. --E-960 (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I am not an admin from the German Wikipedia. Also, the deletion request was clearly bogus, bordering on vandalism, as the file is in use. (And deletion requests are not votes.) Finally, please stop revising your edits multiple times after saving. Use the preview functionality, since this makes answering you very difficult. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I See. E-960, I cannot support you in such a DR. If a file is in use and a DR is not based on a copyright issue, the only option we have is 'keep'. It's explicitly not the task of Wikimedia Commons to decide for other projects what images they should use. Jcb (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And regarding your uploads you seem to be a man on a mission (who really doesn't respect COM:OVERWRITE, best example Germanic Groups ca. 0CE.jpg). It is so simple to blame the other. NNW 19:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, thank you for pointing out another dubious map which showed alleged Germanic speaking territory from 1 AD, which looked a lot like the borders of the Third Reich in 1941 (link: [8]). --E-960 (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You changed the map completely but the source is still the same? Blimey, that's a miracle! NNW 19:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You still do not understand the problem. Commons does not care about the correctness of maps as long as they are used by other projects. If someone uploads a map of Poland that includes all of eastern Germany and western Belarus, this file will stay on Commons if a sister-project uses it. If a map is not in use, then we can discuss its deletion, not before. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to revise the maps and add actual sources, that was shot down (see image talk page), I tried to set up a deletion request that was denied. Just the example I listed above shows how ridiculous and false the claims are, this cuts the the very issue of credibility of the Wikipedia project. This is one of the biggest criticisms of Wikipedia, that people just make stuff up and it stays. --E-960 (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't the maps be revised with a corrected version uploaded, they already have many other updates, all of a sudden now an administrator is throwing up technicalities to prevent any changes from being made? So, it's ok to update a map, but just not now. --E-960 (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read and understand COM:OVERWRITE and your question will be answered. NNW 19:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NNW, yes thank you for confirming my suspicions regarding problems with neutrality and bias, so you can revise maps (and Verbreitungsgebiet der deutschen Sprache.PNG map was edited several times), just now we are going to enforce that rule. However, your response does nothing to answer my question about Wikipedia's credibility and how any one can just make stuff up and their bogus uploads are stay, even when evidence is presented to fully disprove the information. --E-960 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also interested to see how many maps which are in use are regularly deleted? Somehow, I have a suspicion that only now we are such sticklers for the rules. --E-960 (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in your problem with Wikipedia's credibility or any of your suspicions. This is Commons, btw. Learn to play by the rules. That's all. NNW 20:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The map was edited 5 times before I came along, apparently no problem there with rules, just when I called out the map as being misleading, then we get a bunch of editors and admins form the German Wikipeida side calling out various rules that need to be enforced. Let me say it again, the map peddels German nationalist propaganda about alleged and false German minorities in Eastern Europe, also the editor who uploaded the map has been blocked for displaying Nazi sympathies. This is dangerous, and pretty soon we'll have German politicians form Alternative fur Deutschland citing those maps. I really expect the admins to do something about this, by either deleting the map or allowing it to be revised. --E-960 (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joseph Goebbels: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." As noted earlier in this discussion, funny how all these crazy maps happen to topic related to Germany uploaded by editors associated with DW. --E-960 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sebari tried to give it to you straight: "You still do not understand the problem. Commons does not care about the correctness of maps as long as they are used by other projects.". Commons is not the arbiter of accuracy here. Commons hosts images--full stop. And frankly since your repeated flagrant lack of understand of policy makes it unlikely you will be willing anyone to your side I don't see why this needs to continue.. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sixflashphoto, I do understand and see, maps on Wikipeida Commons get changed and adjusted all the time, and people debate this on the talk page, so to lock that option, when there is at least some support form other editors to change the maps, is nothing more then selective enforcement of the rules, I do understand that and see it in practice... bias. --E-960 (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a great example, similar problem... this time with non-existant Russian speakers in Poland on a map: File:Idioma ruso.PNG [9], I raised the issue, and the map was adjusted, only here all of a sudden several editors form the German Wikipeida side jump in and raise up objections based on technicalities. --E-960 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is ridiculous, Wikipedia is being used to spread propaganda, and a bunch of admins either defend it or close their eyes to it, with selective enforcement of the rules (as shown above). I understand perfectly. --E-960 (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, once again) :This is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. What happened was that you replaced this map (which as everyone now knows is incorrect and biased) with another version that was also incorrect and biased and then had a an edit war about it. This lead to several editors having a closer look and determining that the original version was indeed problematic and trying to find ways to correct that, while others were trying to explain to you how are things are handled here on Commons. All the while you kept on screaming "bias", "why doesn't anyone do something", "don't discuss in German", "all the admins from the German Wikipedia (sic!) are against me". Maybe it's time to realize that it's not everyone else that is the problem here. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've blocked E-960‎ for the repeated failures of good faith (an issue of which they had been warned) in this discussion (and the preceding discussion at AN). Эlcobbola talk 21:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After returning from my block, I'd like to note that it is quite difficult to understand why WikiCommons does not have a rule in place to deal with such very problematic items. In Wikipedia, there are procedures in place to remove entire articles which for one reason or another are questionable, regardless of their status, viewer count, etc. I think WikiCommons should have such a rule in place. --E-960 (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is a repository that serves all other Wikimedia projects. When a file is in use at one or more Wikipedias, we cannot unilaterally delete it at Commons just because we think it is flawed, whereas it may not even be contested at Wikipedia. This is why such disputes about the general accuracy and/or neutrality of maps, statistics that are in use always need to be discussed locally at any individual Wikipedia. Commons has no authority to prescribe which type of map Wikipedia users should embed in an article. You are free to upload an alternative map at Commons and may then convince the various Wikipedia communities to use that instead. De728631 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me reiterate that last: You are free to upload an alternative map at Commons and may then convince the various Wikipedia communities to use that instead. - Jmabel ! talk 22:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is what E-960 understands under convincing the Wikipedia communities: [10] - He is changing/replacing all files on his own... By a file completely without sources (Which he already tried to upload weeks ago and failed...). --Jonny84 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this point this behavior by User:Jonny84 borders on harassment, as noted above there are 4 references cited (government census PDFs), and I have every right to create a new map and upload it as a new file, pls stop vandalizing the maps Description box and saying that there are no sources listed. --E-960 (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison: Germans in Slovakia by the Census of 2001
1) This is simply a lie (it's so unbelievable how blatant you're lying.. and where is the 4th reference with government data by the way?), you didn't used Census data and references for creating this map... 'Cause it's nearly the same map, you uploaded weeks before... and failed.. 2) This Czech statistic file doesn't even have data about minorities.. So how is it possible this served and was used as a source?! This can't be serious!? Dear admins block him finally for such manipulations... 3) And Krahule in Slovakia for example had in 2001 Census 20% German inhabitants, Kremnica 1%, Bratislava in total numbers 1200 Germans. I don't see any of these mentioned. The map of Slovakia is completely clear... How's that? There are 18 communes in the Czech Republic with over 10% German inhabitants... The map of the Czech Republic is completely clear... How's that? And in Poland? 7113 (6,2%) German speaking people with Polish Citizenship in Powiat Raciborski, 5291 (4,5%) in Powiat Gliwicki, 3204 (4,2%) in Powiat Lubliniecki, 4090 (2,9%) in Powiat Tarnogorski, 2457 (1,3%) in Bytom, 2727 (1,3%) in Gliwice, 2052 (0,6%) in Katowice, 3156 (1,6%) in Zabrze, 2223 (1,4%) in Powiat Wodzislawski, 1240 (1,4%) in Powiat Mikolowski and 1252 (0,7%) in Powiat Cieszyński.. And on the map? Empty spots... 4) This map is about the spreading of German speaking people, but how were you even able to include and draw in the spread, if this references only mention state data and voivodeship data, but no counties and communes? (And I know they do exist..) --Jonny84 (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to the 2011 Population Census: No German minority in Slovakia
Ok, and this map shows no Germans in Slovakia according to the 2011 census. Also, this does not in any way resolve your issue with the fact that there is no German minority in places like Łodź, Wrocław, etc. in Poland. What you don't get in all this is that what might have been remotely accurate in 1950, is in no way correct after dates such as 1956, 1989, 2004 when more and more of the few remaining Germans left for Germany. Also, why are you listing Powiats in Śląsk, they are on the map because Śląsk is the only place in Poland where Germans actually are in numbers concentrated enough that it would show up on a map like this. Also, on a map of central Europe you will not be able to display tiny German minorities of less then 1%. That's what tables are for, and you can add them an article. --E-960 (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously trying to claim, that there are no German minorities in Slovakia by using a map which displays national MAJORITIES? Isn't that a wonderful example of manipulation? So in that case... there are no Poles in Germany, 'cause they are nowhere in majority lol... --Jonny84 (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the day, it's the fact that you are vandalizing the map's description and edit warring that's the issue. I have every right to post the map with the sources. --E-960 (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This whole debate is about a map of language distributions. The 2011 Population Census of Slovakia, however, is based on "nationality" [11] and not on linguistic evidence, so these numbers should not be mixed up. According to 2013 data from the United Nations Statistics Division, there were 5,190 native speakers of German in Slovakia and 63,600 in Poland. [12] De728631 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to re-focus the discussion and return it to the main point (not regarding the reference sources), however the other issue is that user Jonny84 vandalized the map description several times despite being asked to stop such disruptions. In the end, as noted earlier, as an editor I'm able to upload a new map file, and utilize the sources which are available, and if user Jonny84 is so concerned about detail, why did he not address glaring discrepancies in other related maps such the original Verbreitungsgebiet der deutschen Sprache.PNG which shows areas of German population in Poland where there is none, or exaggerates the size. --E-960 (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • User Jonny84's behavior borders on harassment, this particular discussion is not about a seperate map I uploaded, but about user Postmann Michael, who was blocked due to, quote: "POV from doubtful sources, playing down Nazism. Harms Wikipedia" and his map. --E-960 (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't talk about Postmann Michaels Maps, we are talking about your own map, which claim, that you have used the sources in the description... But these sources has no data about the spread of German speaking people, so how did you made this map without any data? By your own fantasy I guess... --Jonny84 (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, user Jonny84, please review the first comment in this discussion chain, which opens up by referencing Postmann Michael's Verbreitungsgebiet der deutschen Sprache.PNG map. --E-960 (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOW we are clearly talking about your new upload... Which has obviously fake sources... Don't try to make a fool of me, 'cause I've already observed and noticed your manipulations and biased discussions... I know what your intention is... --Jonny84 (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jonny84, I'd like to ask you a question regarding the original map uploaded by Postmann Michael, and get your understanding of this. Why in the city of Łodź you have a large light blue area even though according to the 2011 census only 263 individual declared themselves to be of German ethnicity (even less if you are talking about mother tongue), in a city of 700,000 inhabitants and region of over 2,000,000 people? I'm going to say that that number is too small to be visible on a map of Central Europe. Again, you can't see Vatican City on a map showing all of Italy, unless you exaggerate the size. --E-960 (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So if you are making a map of countries which use Latin language, you will leave out the Vatican, because it's too small in comparison to Europe? Sounds rational... --Jonny84 (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Same rationale here, so please stop vandalizing the article, I've pinged individual admins, because this behavior is a continuation from yesterday. --E-960 (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism User:Jonny84

I'd like to report user User:Jonny84, for repeated vandalism on the Verbreitungsgebiet der deutschen Sprache 2010.png [13] map. The map I recently created is based on 4 reference sources: 2002 Polish Government Census [14], 2011 Polish Government Census [15], 2017 Statistical Yearbook of the Czech Republic [16] , Slovak National Censuses 2001 [17]. However, user User:Jonny84 three times re-added dubious text to the map's description box (in less then 2 hours): [18], [19] and [20], which falsely states that the "Sources missing" and objecting to the various sources listed with misleading arguments, such as this one example: "[Slovak census] No informations about the German minority and their spread." However, this is due to the fact that there is no significant German minority in Slovakia and any one declaring German ethnicity is classified under the "other" category. I ask that an admin look into this behavior which tries to deliberately discredit reliable reference sources, and creates disruptions. --E-960 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, use the page preview, instead of making hundreds of edits.... --Jonny84 (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear admins, just have a look on the 3 sources, and you will see and know, that this map couldn't be based on these sources... This is pure and simply a manipulation by E-960.. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pls stop with the red herring arguments, if the official 2001 Slovak census does not list German ethnicity as a significant minority, how can you even begin to show it on a map, or in Poland if in the city of Łodź, where there is only 263 declared German individuals among 2,597,000 Poles according to the 2011 census, how do you show that on a map? Also, the issue here is not my sources, but your repeated vandalism where you insert dubious text directly into the map's description. --E-960 (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) In the city of Lodz are living 2,597,000 Poles?? What a funny fact, these are more people than in Warsaw (and this is actually the biggest city in Poland) lol.. You have a strange connection to facts... This guy isn't even able to read and quote correctly.. 2) Data about the whole Slovakian state aren't data about single Slovakian communes or cities... Get it? No? 3) Native Americans make 0,9 % of the population of the United States. So they don't exist? --Jonny84 (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have the table on your talk page, Łodź wojewodztwo 2,597,000, Łodź proper 700,000. However, 263 declared German individuals is still very small in comparison to both numbers, and would not show up on a map displaying all of central Europe. However, the issue is you repeatedly vandalizing the map's Description box 3R rule, even after you were asked to stop. --E-960 (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) So learn the difference between the City of Lodz and the Lodz voivodeship first... It's so embarrassing.. 2) It's not about the percentage... It's about total numbers.. A small percentage don't make something disappear... --Jonny84 (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have every right to upload a new map, I'm not breaking any rules by doing this. However, this harassment you are displaying is an issue. Also, small percentages are for tables in article (such as the one I added on your talk page), however not everything can be shown on a map. Just like Vatican City can't be seen on a map of Europe. So, pls stop attacking me just because I created a map you don't like. --E-960 (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have the right to upload a new map. But you also have the obligation to provide correct sources.... And you didn't... These are just fake sources.. --Jonny84 (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny84, pls stop edit warring, you keep throwing up arguments about "100,000 German speaking people disappear", however pls see the comment posted above by user De728631 "According to 2013 data from the United Nations Statistics Division, there were 5,190 native speakers of German in Slovakia and 63,600 in Poland" [21] where do you keep getting over 100,000 German speakers in Poland. --E-960 (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Opole Voivodeship alone had already 86311 (8,1%) German speaking people in the national census from 2002.. And the 46277 (1%) of the Silesian Voivodeship are still missing... So how can it be 63.600 in whole Poland...? --Jonny84 (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask an admin to block or at least warn user Jonny84 for repeated edit warring, this trend is continuing from yesterday and today user Jonny84 re-added tags to the map's description despite being reverted 3R and given the explanation of how the data was applied, here [22], [23] and [24]. User:Jcb, User:Elcobbola I would appreciate it if you could look at the issue, because despite providing reference sources and explaining my approach user Jonny84 keeps altering the new map's description, and as noted in the earlier discussion I'm allowed to upload a map and I'm not breaking any rules in this regard. --E-960 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are breaking rules by UNDO noted doubts and not using Sources... --Jonny84 (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have verified and reasoned my doubts about the correctness of the map ... And you erased it multiple times... So who is vandalising? --Jonny84 (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The map is based on the census data applied to take into consideration areas which actually may be visible on such a large area, taking into consideration actual numbers and density combined. This is an absolutely legitimate approach. --E-960 (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So tell me why 13,93% in Gmina Krzanowice, 11,74% in Gmina Krzyzanowice, 12,67% in Gmina Pietrowice Wielkie are not visible? 10% are not big enough for a minority? Maybe we take 50% for minorites? Sounds logical... --Jonny84 (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 100% sure the map shows German areas in Śląsk, the region where those counties are located, in fact I have not altered those areas from the base map, so what are you complaining about, unless you have an issue with the original Verbreitungsgebiet der deutschen Sprache.PNG map. --E-960 (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please block User:Yngyang!

See file history of File:Schememan21.jpg. Gikü (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Blocked indef. Guanaco (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They made another account: see File:Ioan aiurel pop.jpg by User:123IaurtSana. Gikü (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Blocked and deleted. Guanaco (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actions of Giorgi Balakhadze

After I reverted Giorgi Balakhadze's continuation of edit-warring on File:Location of the de facto Republic of Abkhazia in Eastern Europe.svg, he made another version that fits his political views, as stated on his user page, and used global replace to switch all of the pages that previously used the old file to the one that he just made. After going on his talk page and trying to discuss the issue Giorgi later began using aggressive wording with bold and capital letters, as well as saying things like "I'm done here talking with you and wasting my time". After looking at his upload history, I have discovered many examples of POV pushing done by Giorgi where he changes maps to fit his political views and sometimes inappropriately uses Commons guidelines to cover that up, however later completely violates those same policies when it is favourable for his political views. I already states my case on his talk page, so rather than rewriting everything I will copy and paste the discussion I started.

-STARTS HERE-
Why did you entirely replace the map that was used before, which you earlier tried to change and later renamed to File:Location of the de facto Republic of Abkhazia in Eastern Europe.svg, with your new uploaded map, which is also the version you tried to push for on the first file File:Location of the region of Abkhazia in Eastern Europe.svg? You claim that the new map is "the NPOV version", but making Georgia dark grey isn't necessarily the only NPOV thing to do, depending on the context. In some cases different maps will be appropriate. For example, on w:Kosovo, the map of Kosovo does not depict Serbia as dark grey, neither does the map used on w:Republic of Artsakh depict Azerbaijan dark grey, nor the map used on w:Northern Cyprus depict the rest of the island as dark grey. Same can be said about the maps used on w:Taiwan in relation to China, w:Somaliland in relation to Somalia, and w:Transnistria in relation to Moldova. What makes you think that the only NPOV thing to do with the de facto independent Abkhazia is to depict it as a part of Georgia despite the fact that all of these other de facto independent regions do not do that? You cannot just push the map you are more comfortable with on other Wikipedia projects. --Relignments (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good that you mentioned those maps, some of them are very good examples how badly wikipedia handles such issues. If you aren't aware we have WikiProject_Maps' Conventions where clearly said (and shown) that disputed borders must be different. You just can't show Abkhazia in the same way as Germany or USA (but you were pushing that). I'll rework all of them to meet the convention criteria for usage on WikiProjects. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 06:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that disputed borders should be different then why do the majority of your maps of Georgia not include disputed borders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Also can you provide a link to the specific rule you are referring to? I also wanted to add that I wasn’t pushing for anything, I waned you to stop changing an existing map, as did many other users in the past, so don’t accuse me of that. --Relignments (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maps can be with disputed borders or without them. If map contains disputed borders then they must be different then other ones. I've some maps with disputed borders and they are shown in proper way, not like you try to push. Also, I've explained that the map's current face under its title was misleading. Before in edit summary I wrote that It must be either renamed, replaced or changed (last is done), but you ignored it and just reverted my changes. After that my next step was renaming and replacing of it as I wrote earlier It must be either renamed, replaced or changed (last is done)--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conventions are here ► en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused. You're contradicting yourself. If maps can be with or without disputed borders then what's wrong with the border shown on File:Location of the de facto Republic of Abkhazia in Eastern Europe.svg being shown as not disputed, because it is just like your maps of Georgia show the administrative border between Abkhazia and Georgia as not disputed despite the fact that it is. You can't just follow certain policies when they align with your political views and claim that it's not NPOV when they don't. In fact, that starts to seem a lot like POV pushing. Judging by the opinions you published on your user page, this is also the view that you clearly hold and it seems that you are trying to push that on Wikipedia and on the maps here on Commons. Also once again I want to point out that the problem on File:Location of the de facto Republic of Abkhazia in Eastern Europe.svg was not me pushing for use of the map, it was me being against you changing it completely just as Dag13, Chipmunkdavis, Maurice07, Insider and User:Fry1989 did. --Relignments (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it so hard for you to understand difference between disputed border shown as INTERNATIONAL border and disputed border shown as DISPUTED border? Is it so hard for you to understand difference between these two? If it is, then I'm done here talking with you and wasting my time.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 16:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm confused by your "logic" that if one makes a map without disputed borders it equals(?!) to a map with disputed borders shown as international?? what a...
Maps can be with or without disputed borders, with or without administrative, municipal, regional and etc borders, the only border that stays is international border because international borders are the most important ones. But map cannot be with international borders + disputed borders shown as international borders. The End.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 17:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very disappointed that the course you chose to take with this discussion is your aggressive wording and outright refusal to continue the dialogue. Furthermore, as I am looking deeper into your upload history I am noticing a number of uploads and reverts that indicate you POV pushing on this platform. You changed the following files with the description "Rv of sockpuppet and per COM:OVERWRITE", however after reading w:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry I realize that nothing there indicates that you must revert all of the edits and uploads of users guilty of sockpuppetry. Plus, many of the maps that were not edited by sockpuppets before were still changed by you regardless, with the main, and sometimes only, changes being removing the disputed borders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Also after reading COM:OVERWRITE I realize that the point of the guideline is to not substantially alter existing files and keep the file the same or closely similar to its original upload, with the exception of minor changes. However, the changes that you made on many of these maps look nothing like the original upload with the layout still being completely different, and all you did was remove the borders of all post-Soviet breakaway regions (both disputed and sovereign borders, depending on the map), including Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as disputed borders like Crimea, despite in most cases keeping Kosovo and the disputed borders of Palestine. If you claim that you made your changes under COM:OVERWRITE to keep the content the same rather than the visual representation and remove the addition of breakaway regions, which was done in later versions, then it still seems odd that you would choose to keep Kosovo despite it also not being present on the original version. It seems that your main goal was to eliminate the borders between Georgia and its disputed regions, as well as any similar conflicts that relate to the post-Soviet space. PLus if you really were following COM:OVERWRITE then your actions on File:Location of the de facto Republic of Abkhazia in Eastern Europe.svg are a violation of that policy, because you kept pushing for a version that was significantly different than the original. You cannot just hide behind policies for the sake of altering maps to fit your political views just to break those same policies when your political views don't align with the original map.

In my opinion, many of those maps on that list shouldn't have made the breakaway regions have sovereign borders as they are already in wide use on Wikipedia, but you removed the disputed regions entirely to fit your political views. So, when you say that maps can be with or without disputed borders then why is it that you often remove disputed borders on maps regardless, especially the ones in Georgia, your country of origin. Another interesting example is File:Europe Location Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.svg. This map shows the former breakaway region in Russia, similar to the situation in Abkhazia, however when you edited it, your main priority wasn't to colour Russia grey as you did with the Georgia-Abkhazia example, but instead to remove the border of Abkhazia shown on the map. This clearly shows that you edit maps in accordance with your political motivations rather than the Commons guidelines you claim to follow. There are also examples of maps where you tried to remove Abkhazia and South Ossetia, such as File:Europe-Georgia.svg, File:Caucasus locator map.png, File:United Ossetia.svg and File:Flag map of Georgia, without Abkhazia and South Ossetia.png, but you were reverted by other users, so I will not go too much in depth with them. This is clearly a long history of POV pushing that you have been doing here on Commons where you try and eliminate the disputed borders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia due to your political beliefs, as stated on your user page. Due to your refusal to continue the discussion, as well as the extent of the issue, I find it necessary to notify an administrator. --Relignments (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and one more, if you think that Russian occupation of the internationally recognized territories of Georgia is a "simply my opinion" then read this article and related materials again and again, again and again. Unlike accounts like yours that appear only after some edits and are used (mostly by sockmasters) as single-purpose accounts. I've done a lot of contribution across different wikiprojects besides this change.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 17:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now about your last loong comment, I will be very brief. You misrepresented facts, you didn't understand rules properly, you are making personal attack and false claims against me so be a little bit careful with your artifices. If you want to go deeper, be sure I won't stand back and will show up your every single defamation.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 17:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-ENDS HERE-
It is clear that this user has been doing this for a very long time, so I hope that this POV pushing is halted. Thank you for your time. --Relignments (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last two comments added to the discussion and this page by the user have been posted after I made this report, where he is clearly threatening to 'show up my every single defamation'. My response was "I said that it aligns with your political views based on the statements you made on your user page, which it absolutely does. The whole reason I made a Commons account was after I saw the map of Abkhazia change on en:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia, and after looking into it I realized what has been going on. I have never made any personal attacks or false claims, and I thoroughly read the guidelines you cited prior to making this comment, so I would kindly ask you not to make threats like that." This only emphasizes the user's attitude on this platform where he makes agressive remarks and refuses dialogue. --Relignments (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that now admins will judge and I'll prove my words for everyone. For now I'll add only this link (Relignments Global account information) here. As an answer to this diff which amazes me because how this new user knows everything, including how to "compromise", were to report, how to check and how to to everything so quickly that I wasn't catching up to respond (I can't catch up even here, meh).--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 18:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I am currently too occupied to read through this whole discussion, but a brief look through the version history of the disputed file shows a clear violation of COM:OVERWRITE by User:Giorgi Balakhadze and an edit war over years by him. This needs to stop immediately, not only on this file, but also on all other similar files. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Srittau please don't use brief looks in this case. What was in 2014 it was 4 years ago. Speak about fact that the file wasn't neutral and it was violating Wiki policies. All my efforts were to make the file neutral and not to show disputed region in the same way as USA or France.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 18:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After my last changes I've renamed the file (to describe what it was showing) and upload new one.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 18:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sebari, the other files posted by me also show this user's violations, I hope you have a look at them when you have time. Clearly the only violation of neutrality that this user is referring to is when maps oppose his views, as clearly some of the files I posted show him removing even disputed borders of the breakaway region.I also don't understand why Giorgi Balakhadze thinks I am unable to read guidelines he cited himself in his edit comments or search up report user. Especially after using Wikipedia for so long for educational purposes and seeing some crazy information being added and later changed back due to the users being reported and blocked. --Relignments (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now about the File:European Union Iceland Locator.svg and many of the others that will follow[ed], had disputed borders already in place(false claim - do you see any of them? - no), which you then just removed(yes I restored the file to the original version check), once again with the exception of Kosovo for many of those maps.(false claim again)--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 18:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to mention this user talks exactly about the same files that sockpuppet User:Leftcry were actively changing violating COM:OVERWRITE rule and which I've reverted after his block.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 18:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The map had disputed borders on the version before your upload (once again disputed borders, not sovereign ones), and you removed them despite saying here that they can or cannot be shown. As per Kosovo I said that "for many of those files", the one you gave an example of (of course) is the one where you removed Kosovo as well , but the maps that follows such as File:European Union Ukraine Locator.svg, File:European Union Norway Locator.svg, File:European Union Switzerland Locator.svg, and many more show you keeping Kosovo over other regions. --Relignments (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's correct as shown by the edit history many of those files have been altered by that user, although not all, however as I mentioned after reading Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, nothing there says you have to revert every edit made by the sock puppets, so you cannot use that as justification for pushing your political views onto maps. --Relignments (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am so tired explaining such elementary things - as I said you don't understand rules properly. In case of files like File:European Union Ukraine Locator.svg, File:European Union Norway Locator.svg, File:European Union Switzerland Locator.svg they already had Kosovo at the very beginning so it would be very wrong to remove it, don't overwrite means that you must keep original way, so I did.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 18:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They had Kosovo as a sovereign border, so if you were really following COM:OVERWRITE, then you would return that (not that I am saying that is what should be done, I am just proving a point), however many maps such as File:Europe-Switzerland.svg, File:Europe-Norway.svg, File:EU-Latvia.svg, and many more did not have Kosovo on the original uplaod, but you kept it anyway over other borders, including Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Plus if you talk about COM:OVERWRITE then what was it that you were doing on File:Location of the de facto Republic of Abkhazia in Eastern Europe.svg? You can't just cite policies for when it is convenient for you and your political views. --Relignments (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding File:Europe-Switzerland.svg, File:Europe-Norway.svg, File:EU-Latvia.svg (and not many more because I've already shown your false claims) maybe I've made technical mistake because original maps were in brown color and I was uploading in green-grey color. All of them had Kosovo border in the very beginning green-grey map (check Europe-Switzerland.svg, Europe-Norway.svg and EU-Latvia.svg). I was restoring those Europe maps from the one file just changing country colors (who makes similar maps will understand me).--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 18:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So what about your other false claims? Do you recognize that you try to exaggerate everything? --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 18:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed many more, and they can all be seen on my list. However, it's very interesting that you mentioned that because the first green and grey version on those maps includes disputed borders for not only Kosovo, but also Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which you still removed and which was essentially your main objective on those maps. This is exactly what I mean. The user innapropriately uses guidelines as a tool to push for his political views while keeping and removing borders he likes or doesn't like. He is clear about his position on Abkhazia and South Ossetia on his user page, and reflects that political view on his changes to the maps on this website. --Relignments (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If so, I'll add one more false claim by you. File:Europe-Republic of Kosovo.svg - "This map is especially interesting because it was one of the ones I listed at the beginning of this discussion. You claimed that this map was(I said "some of them" not clarifying to this one at all(!)) '"an example of how badly Wikipedia handles such issues," however you were the one who edited this map. Instead of making Serbia grey, which would align with your changes on the Abkhazia map, all you did was get rid of post-Soviet disputed borders, leaving Kosovo the way it is.(False claim again - as you can see before and after I've changed disputed border in the same way as I did with abkhazia at last. And didn't left Kosovo as it was before (and how you push to keep Abkhazia's disputed border as international) but marked with dashed line. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 19:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You were not at all clear and did not mention any map specifically to say that it was indeed a good example of showing disputed borders, so it was my impression that you included this map in that statement. Either way, you still did not push for Serbia to be grey as you did with Abkhazia and Georgia, and if you look at the original version of that map of Kosovo, once again you can see disputed borders for Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which you again removed as you did on many other maps. --Relignments (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding removal of other disputed regions there, it can be explained in the same way as above (I did everything from the one file). Now about grey area, I've made it with Abkhazia name and then with Region of Abkhazia don't you know that according to historical and current division Georgia has a region in the exact same borders? Kosovo is not a region in Serbia, Kosovo in its borders is a 100% political creation (check the file file:Kosovo och Metohija.PNG). If you wanted to talk about these 4 files, you could discuss about them on my talk page but not making tons of false claims here, and turning this page into user's discussion page. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 19:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo and Metohija is one autonomous region under Serbian law, so that's incorrect, but how is that even relevant. It cannot be a coincidence that you have a history of removing Abkhazia and South Ossetia from maps before, and changing maps of Georgia in that favour, while at the same time clearly stating your political views about them on your user page and then they are removed from all of those maps I listed after your changes. This is clearly an intentional POV pushing that has been carried out by you for a long period of time. --Relignments (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to be fair and don't try to mislead users, and don't try to have revenge against me because I've reverted sockpuppet's (User:Leftcry) edits made with violations (first of all because he was sockpuppet), you should admit that you're exaggerating everything (and making an elephant from a fly :)) to pursue some hidden motivations. There are thousands of similar files (I mean files showing all of these disputed regions) but I don't touch them and did touch only these ones.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 19:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maps like File:EU-Estonia.svg and File:EU-Latvia.svg were never even editd by User:Leftcry and many other maps were either already changed to include sovereign borders before his uploads or his version was not the last version to be present before you changed those maps. Either way as I already said, after reading w:Wikipedia:Sock Puppetry there is nothing that says you have to revert all edits made by sock puppets, so it is not even an actual policy and you can't use it as an excuse to assert your political opinion. Plus in many cases you did not just revert his edits, you changed the map to a version where Abkhazia and South Ossetia are entirely removed which was not the case before he started changing those maps. Also User:leftcry was never involved in the edit history of File:Location of the de facto Republic of Abkhazia in Eastern Europe.svg, which was the file that started this whole discussion, so clearly it is not just about his edits. --Relignments (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for some reason we started talking about this file File:Europe Location Abkhazia.svg and suddenly on my talk page had appeared files that I've edited in 26 October 2016. From 36 files (claimed by you) only 4 files were with technical mistakes and you of course didn't mention that I've kept disputed borders (including Abkhazia and SO) here File:Baltic states.svg even after reverting sockpuppet's edit. Why? Don't you check everything fairly?
Regarding reverting sock puppets, if you wish I can link you with some users which will explain to you (like they did it to me) that it is have to do thing to revert such edits. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 20:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because after looking at your user upload history all of those maps came up with your obvious POV pushing. I will admit that I did not see the disputed borders present on File:Baltic states.svg, but other than that file you did effectively remove them from all of the other maps. --Relignments (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I hope this will be final time when I'm explaining that it was a revert of sockpuppet. It really amazes me how users came up with other users edits made in 2016, even for me its so boring and hard to track all my past edits. I wish I could see your 1-2-3 years old edits (instead of 5 days) without false claims, personal attacks and mislead. Use your own time and energy for better activities and contribute to build up wiki. I've finished for today.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 20:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've already explained enough how the user's actions have been consistent with pushing his POV regarding Abkhazia and South Ossetia. They are not as he claims, just to revert the sock puppet User:Leftcry, because some of the maps did not include the users edits, including the original map of discussion File:Location of the de facto Republic of Abkhazia in Eastern Europe.svg, and many more of the maps were not consistent with COM:OVERWRITE as claimed by Giorgi Balakhadze and were simply change to reflect his political opinions. It's ridiculous how the user thinks that just because he has more experience than me on Wikipedia he can make such obvious violations of neutrality and POV push. He also keeps saying that I have personally attakced him, despite me not ever targetting him personally for anything other than his editing, at the same time while he used aggressive wording, said that he is done talking to me and that it is a waste of time, constantly repeated that I cannot understand elementary things and that it is tiresome for him to have to explain it to me and overall used generally rude language. I really hope that something will be done about the constant violations made by this user. --Relignments (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a stop, you are repeating and repeating your claims, that already have been proved to be a false. Brief answer, my edits (in mentioned File:Europe Location Abkhazia.svg in case of disputed border shown as international) were made for neutrality (I know that at the very beginning (10:53, 30 June 2018) it can be seen as overwrite, but I've made an explanation "Previous version violates NPOV" (it was widely used in wikiprojects). "It must be either renamed, replaced or changed (last is done)", after above mentioned user's reverts I've renamed the file and uploaded its new version separately; in case of Europe maps –- to revert sock puppet (but had 4 technical mistakes out of 36)); plus there (in sp's edits) and in other maps per COM:OVERWRITE rule (to follow don't overwrite rule one doesn't need sock-puppet's edits).--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 21:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure where the 4 out of 36 thing came from. we established that it was only the Baltic States maps that still had the borders, and none of the other ones, where you were POV pushing to remove disputed borders in Georgia. --Relignments (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just realized after looking at the user's block log that he has been indefinitely blocked before multiple time. First for "disruptive editing: user is here mainly to push an ethnic agenda, refuses to back down", then for "Intimidation/harassment: political editwarring, revenge RfD's etc.", and then once again for that reason, but he was later unblocked after with the explanation that he "has recognized issues and promised he is rehabilitated", however the continuous POV pushing shows otherwise. I'm not sure what revenge RfD's are but he has definitely been intimidating me in this discussion when he thretened me saying: "I won't stand back and will show up your every single defamation," he has also been rude and targetted my intelligence saying I don't understand elemntary things. Of course clearly as seen recently on File:Location of the de facto Republic of Abkhazia in Eastern Europe.svg, he has also been involved in political edit warring, and based on his changes to the maps I presented I do think he is still here to push an ethnic agenda, as described in his first indefinite block. --Relignments (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your last comments show that your "arguments" have disappeared and now use "Plan B"? Yes was blocked a long time ago and so what? Now every time when someone will make false claims and personal attacks against me, they can use it as an argument? - Nope. You fail to prove what you claimed and now you want to block me because I was blocked in 2015? :). That really reminds me sock puppets of the user:WhyHellWhy.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 21:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No my arguments have not dissappeared and they still stand, but this shows that you did not commit to changing your violations and continue to push them on this website. There is no "Plan B". How does your previous block history and current violations of NPOV relate to the sockpuppets of WhyHellWhy? It is not just "so what?" that you have been blocked a long time ago, because you were unblocked on the basis that you would not continue your disrputive behaviour and yet that is what you're doing. If users disagree with your POV pushing it does not mean that they are as you said sock puppets of WhyHellWhy. If you really think that I have failed to prove your violations, then let's just wait for an administrator's comments on this, because I feel that I have presented more than enough proof. --Relignments (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Relignments: I have warned Georgi for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff G., what about all the files he changed? As well as the Global Replace he used to push his version of a map onto other platforms. --Relignments (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Relignments: I have yet to see evidence of "the Global Replace he used to push his version of a map onto other platforms." Further actions regarding Giorgi Balakhadze are up to Administrators like @Srittau.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff G., It is all stated in the beginning of the report. He replaced all of the usage of File:Location of the de facto Republic of Abkhazia in Eastern Europe.svg with File:Location of the region of Abkhazia in Eastern Europe.svg, the version he first tried to push on the first map by edit warring, without any discussion on the independent wiki projects. --Relignments (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff G. I don't understand about what file are you talking here could you link it?--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 17:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Giorgi Balakhadze: Such files are discussed above in this section and near mentions of COM:OVERWRITE on your user talk page. @Relignments: Edits like this are best discussed on the wikis where they were made, or at m:srg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: if you are talking about Europe location maps, then you are mistaken, because it was me who acted in accordance to don't overwrite rule (sock-puppet added conflict regions where originally there weren't). Regarding disputed territory maps, it is already discussed and included in map conventions that if there is shown disputed region on the map it must have dashed border but not international because otherwise it is really pro-secessionist POV pushing.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 17:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: If you read the discussion you will see that Giorgi's comment above is false as his changes did not align with COM:OVERWRITE and were really there simply to remove the borders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, even if they were already dashed and shown as disputed. Please notice his different approach to showing Kosovo. It is really confusing how he is talking about dashed borders and pro-secessionist POV pushing when he did remove dashed borders for Abkhazia and South Ossetia in many maps listed by me. --Relignments (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not sure why the user feels the need to leave comments that are simply not true when the discussion is literally right above. If you look back at what he said here he claimed to have gone of the overwrite rule from the original gray and green maps, which included Kosovo as well as Abkhazia, South Ossetia, but he only left Kosovo. --Relignments (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, yes please do read every single word above, check every single file what he linked, and check all my arguments when I say that he uses false claims, personal attack and hostile attitude. And I do demand do check this single purpose account for sock-puppetry (of the user:WhyHellWhy). And to block him for such disrespectful actions against Wikimedia contributors.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 17:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do, because I have done none of that and I have suported all of my claims with facts, as seen in the above discussion. Giorgi has tried to show my so-called "false claims" but I have proven that they are all indeed true and correct. He has yet to show any proof of personal attacks that I made and is talking about a hostile attitude when he was the one who stated it was a "waste of time" discussing any issues revolving his edits before I even brought up the further issues of his changes on previous maps, and then threatened to "show up my every single defamation" after I did bring up the other issues. It's also absolutely ridiculous that when the user gets called out for his POV pushing his imediate response is to accuse me of of sock-puppetry from a random user blocked four years ago. I really hope that this is addressed soon. --Relignments (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was pinged here and on my talk page: I currently have no time to look into this, especially since this discussion now spans multiple pages of mainly two users arguing. Hint: Sometimes less is more. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sebari, Could perhaps any other administrators be asked to take a look at this issue? --Relignments (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure the other administrators are aware of the issue. It's hard to miss this discussion ... Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User E-960

Can somebody finally stop User E-960? Look at [26]. It's unbelievable how he's ignoring all my explanations and arguments verified by sources, claiming it all simply as vandalism... Using sources is vandalism? --Jonny84 (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a map I uploaded as a new file, and provided at this point 5 reference sources, you just don't like the outcome of what they say. Also, your behavior at this point amounts to harassment of another editor. --E-960 (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of this sources verify the representations on the map... So... I have all rights to doubt the correctness of this map. --Jonny84 (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2nd day, vandalism User:Jonny84

I'd like to ask an admin to block or at least warn user Jonny84 for repeated edit warring, this trend is continuing from yesterday and today user Jonny84 re-added tags to the map's description despite being reverted 3R and given the explanation of how the data was applied, here [27], [28] and [29], [30] and [31]

I've reported this issue at three reverts, but at this point this has continued and now the count is up to 5 reverts by Jonny84. Again, I'd like to ask admins User:Jcb, User:Elcobbola and User:Srittau or anyone if you could look at the issue, because despite providing reference sources and explaining my approach user Jonny84 keeps altering the new map's description, and as noted in the earlier discussion I'm allowed to upload a map and I'm not breaking any rules in this regard. --E-960 (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

m( sad. That game is now going to a real problem, you both broke the 3RR clearly ongoing for nothing. I looked on the first "new" global usage of the "new" map.[32], which is nonsense, because it is a map with another thematic. It is becoming apparent, you are a slightly going to a hot headed man on a mission. The same rule for WP is guilty for Commons: w:WP:BATTLEGROUND, w:WP:Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals. The discussion was not really finished and you propagate your version as "not disputed", this is not acceptable. Ignoring the concrete mentioned discussion is not acceptable. Unfortunately I support another administrative action for both. PS: And again, this is not the place to discusse substantive disputes about files (as on #Vandalism_User:Jonny84). -- User: Perhelion 01:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User: Perhelion, with all due respect, I do not need permission to create a new map and upload it under a new name and file. In fact that's what everyone above said just create a different file, there is no need for permission in this case. Also, I'm not saying that user Jonny84 is disruptive because he dissagrees with me, but because he ignores the sources provided to back up the new map, and keeps changing the map's description breaking the 3R rule, I'm not out of line for reverting and asking him to stop altering the new map's description, and I did nothing wrong by creating that new version of the map under a new name. -E-960 (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is outragous can an admin block user Jonny84, again just now he is reverting the map's description. Where are the admins?? Clear bias allowing an editor just do this without even a warning to stop while the disscussion is going on! --E-960 (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E-960: I've restored the {{Disputed map}} tag and protected the description from editing for two weeks. Clearly, all versions of this map are in dispute, not only Jonny84's preferred version. Please stop edit warring, even if you are certain there is no problem with your map. Use the file talk page to discuss instead. Also keep in mind we have no three-revert rule on Commons, so slowing down to three or even one revert per day will not exempt you from a block. Guanaco (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up...

I'd came across this editor and suspect--based on their user name and interest in Louisiana photos--that it is this same editor who has done a ton of damage on Wikipedia . As for their edits here on the Commons, I looked at the first two photos they uploaded as "own work" ([33] and [34]), and both are copyright violations. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked and tagged all known socks of this user that exist on Commons. It appears that in addition to evading the block on Dragonrap2, he has been actively using multiple accounts here: Futurewiki and Wikilester1999. Guanaco (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All files from Futurewiki are deleted or tagged for deletion. Digging a bit deeper into cross-wiki history, it looks like the master account is Hissrap19. Guanaco (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope @Guanaco: GMGtalk 17:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk · contribs) insists on categorizing a photo as Category:Child marriage based on very shaky “evidence”. This is not only a matter of categorization (which would go to VP), but possible misuse of undo of other’s edits and abuse of {{Personality}} on the Commons file page itself, concerning an identifiable photo of a minor (of tender age, as they say these days). I quote from the user page discussion:

Hi, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, I notied you uploaded this image. Imho the file should be renamed because of #2. File:Bridesmaid wearing a white dress.jpg, because this is what it looks like. . Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
And Why is that, if I may ask so? Lotje (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Lotje: These images are uploaded for Category:Child marriage.Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Lotje and ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: The fact that it was uploaded to populate a given cat doen’t imply that that very same categorization is correct. In this case I agree with Lotje that it is not. This scene seems to depict a bride's maid or a “flower girl” or a “wedding band girl”, not the bride herself. Do you have better data than just a hunch? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Lotje and Tuvalkin: Above the original image, you will find "bride".If she can be considered a bride or Bridesmaid, the two categories can be added together.Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Above the original image I also find "joy", and yet this girl looks anything but. Above the original image I find not categories, but tags — indeep a spoonful of spammy tagging. Probably hundreds of photos from this wedding were tagged identically. In view of the available data it is not reasonable to say that this photo depicts child marriage. I suggest you thank and apologize to Lotje and reinstate her accurate edits on this file page. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Sorry, I do not want these edits ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lotje and ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLOCKER78

BLOCKER78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) After creating their user page, first two edits are a bizarre and inaccurate rant about freedom of panorama on a random DR I filed, and a bizarre and inaccurate rant about admins. My first thought is a sock (pinging @Jeff G.: who asked about that), but this could use other eyes. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: I think it's probably a sock, and I think @LX would agree.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is a relative newcomer who was blocked on English Wikipedia. They don't seem to know the difference between user pages and user talk pages, they don't sign their comments, and they attempt to indent with Modifier Letter Triangular Colon (Unicode U+02D0) instead of standard colons. May not be actionable or problematic enough to worry about yet, but worth keeping half an eye on. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Account

User:Jasn562 has been uploading a lot of heel images from various websites, including an ebayimg and flickr. I believe the images may not conform to Wikicommons policy due to possible violations of copyright or attribuation.JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done All images have been deleted, no new uploads since the warnings. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Karelj at FPC

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In a vote at FPC, Karelj expresses an interest in seeing a child in a photo dead. I think such an inconsiderate comment deserves a block. --Cart (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is a comment of bad taste, but they may have meant the "explosion" in a figurative way. küñall (nütramyen) 23:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Insensitive joke, which I don't interpret as actually wanting the child to die. I'd like to see Karel be nicer, but I don't support his being banned for this. If it's considered a good idea to give him a brief block of a day or two, I won't object, but people have made all kinds of insensitive remarks on FPC without being banned. A warning may be sufficient. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting a ban, only a block, the duration of which could be determined by folks more used to these things than I am. --Cart (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I get it. Let's hear from him on what he meant, and then the admins can make a decision. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I see it, the comment was intended as a joke about the child getting so fat she "explodes" as you'd see in cartoons. It is a joke in very bad taste and I do not deem it appropriate, certainly not from a user who has special privileges on Commons. The image in question depicts a real person and bullying said person like this is unacceptable. --Peulle (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What special privileges does he have? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Autoconfirmed and autopatrolled.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest making him a regular user. He needs supervision, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I think the comment he made was in very poor form and insensitive, I don't think there is enough to warrant the removal of autopatrolled over one very insensitive comment but if you have more evidence of bad behaviour, we would then likely remove them. I do think that Karelj should remove the comment and apologise. Also, I don't believe autoconfirmed can be removed, since it is given automatically after four days. Bidgee (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Autoconfirmed is given to users automatically after a few days, and we can't remove it. It exists only to thwart spambots, sockpuppets, and vandals. Autopatrolled is simply a flag for frequent, reasonably competent contributors, not a special privilege. The standard for autopatrolled is that the user's edits don't need to be patrolled for copyright violations, vandalism, etc. If the only questionable edits are insensitive comments at FPC, QIC, etc, they will be seen anyway.
That said, I don't think the comment was too egregious. It's idiomatic to say "I ate so much cake I might explode." In the absolute worst case, the person "explodes" by vomiting. Guanaco (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My dear lord. I wonder if he was actively referring to Monty Python (probably NSFW, probably don't watch after lunch either), but even if he wasn't, I don't think this is sanction-worthy at all. I don't see any reason to remove or alter the comment either. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and suggest that Karel may have been commenting along the same lines I did ... that the original picture, in which a small, fat girl is seen earing, was sort of insensitive, since it was framed as part of an anti-obesity campaign. But due to his limited English and, perhaps, Poe's Law, it came across as unnuanced and genuinely insensitive. My guess is that he was thinking, perhaps, of saying something like "I suppose your next picture shows her exploding". Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Witnessed the act itself and decided to add some more insight, since Cart brought it here. First - judging by his name and surroundings, Karelj is Czech (as I am). In our language, a saying "nažrat se k prasknutí" - to eat till (one) bursts - is a fairly common phrase used by everybody, albeit a bit expressive. It is in no way intended as a deathwish phrase - on the contrary, when used in common speech, it is used to describe anybody having a good time eating. So much for a linguistic explanation.
    Personally, Cart's reaction kind of shocks me. As a man raised up on Monty Python sketches, I am used to seeing much harsher scenes and depictions. I'm not sure how far the "western" world has moved socially since the 60s, but this should definitely be perceived as a humor. If not, something is wrong. --GeXeS (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Nothing to be done here from an administrator's perspective. Joke in bad taste, but nothing actionable. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Tuvalkin

Tuvalkin is a long-time user with many useful contributions. However, his consistently abrasive manner has reached problematic levels. Today, he launched a personal attack on a user asking a perfectly reasonable question, then adding a deliberately unhelpful comment on the DR the user was asking for help with. (That DR seems to me to be a basic application of COM:SCOPE; I would have filed it myself, albeit less eloquently.) There was absolutely no reason for either of these actions - they were clearly done simply because the user was creating a deletion request. Complaining about admins who delete files for being out of scope is merely annoying; actively insulting users and disrupting DRs is unacceptable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, but I’d arrive here. I’m monitoring this page for a solution about the issue above: A user uses Commons’ categorization to abuse personality rights of a photographed minor and no admin wants to pick that up, after four days. But there’s time to spare with problematic me, of course. Priorities! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pi.1415926535: : As you know, scope is mostly in the eye of the beholder. When seen in a minimalist way, Commons gets filled up with cruff (some of which may or get deleted eventually), which is bad; when seen in a maximalist way, we lose content. For ever. Which is a million times worse.
Additionally, the real mission of Commons (a free media repository) is still under constant attack from within, by people with a wide variety of agendas, some of them legitimate. (See f.i. our very own policy that states, as quoted by Anarchyte, that «An image does not magically become useful by virtue of the argument that it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X, merely because X happens to be the subject of the photograph» — which is, to use a technical term, bogus a.f.) There’s not necessarily a nefarious intent behind this: I cannot forget how, as one of my very first action in Commons, I tried to get deleted a photo of a famous painting based on the fact that we already had another one, argueably better. Meanwhile I learned better, but, as one becomes less of a deletionist by being “infected” with the Commons bug, any file successfully deleted during one’s deletionist phase will be lost forever.
In the case at hand, we have someone’s sudden urge to delete a few hundred photos, someone who however didn’t even yet browse through their own user preferences to find VFC: Of course I had to be abrasive. Quid pro quo, user:Pi.1415926535, who’s clutching his pearls above, immediately proceded to call me a troll — which is cute: I lose my cool when media risks deletion, what’s your excuse?
As for my abrasiveness: it didn’t reach any new levels, it has been consistently constant for a decade (seriously: just dig the archives). — Funny thing: At one time, some three years ago, a well known admin played the same exact shtick: That I’m a very good contributor yadda, yadda, yadda, but that «lately» I had become unstable or something. Not true at all, but the kicker is that said admin was INC. Doesn’t get any better than this.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: You make good points, but you dilute them with rudeness and ad hominem. This enables your opponents to dismiss the valid arguments and instead talk about personal attacks and disruption. Now we're at AN/U, by its nature a place for tone policing. You've been protesting this for years, and you never get very far.
There are years of precedent for the deletionist interpretation of policy. Even if your interpretation is the right one, you won't get anywhere arguing in this manner. Your point about users having a "deletionist phase" is revealing of the issue. While learning, our patrollers tend to enforce the letter of the policy, nominating everything that's eligible. Over time, most of us learn nuance, and we prioritize. Copyvios in use on Wikipedia are clearly more harmful than some well-categorized, freely licensed photo of a non-notable person. Is such a photo damaging to the project at all? Is anything gained by deleting it? I think you have interesting answers to these questions. Present your ideas as a policy proposal, and we can have a proper debate. Guanaco (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to parade myself around as though I know the ins-and-outs of Commons; I don't. I rarely use the site anymore because of the sheer tendency for people to instantly assume bad faith or to immediately go on the defensive, instead of attempting to discuss or inform those less experienced. Speaking without regard to the DR, I can only know what's in front of me. If people don't think COM:SCOPE is accurate, change the page! Don't wait for someone to come along and base a mass deletion on it for you to then say "hang on, I'm not a fan of the whole "let's delete stuff" idea" or the premise that Commons is not a media repository, as much as the first sentence of the page leads you to believe. If you scroll down just a tad, or if you read my whole rationale, you'll see this: Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose, linked to via COM:EDUSE. If a bunch of graduation photos is not a "private image collection", then I don't know what is.
Additionally, your statement of any file successfully deleted during one’s deletionist phase will be lost forever is wrong, at least in this case. I clicked on twenty random images and opened up the Flickr page and they're still there. Consequently, if we remove them from Commons, we're not removing all traces of them, we're just abiding by what Commons says Commons is.
Finally, I can't believe you used the argument "it didn’t reach any new levels, it has been consistently constant for a decade" as a get out of jail free card. Are you serious? Your reasoning behind biting someone is that you're always like this? There will hopefully a point at which you'll realise what you're saying, and then take note of what we're actually trying to do here: improve people's understanding of topics through (relevant) media. We're not here to argue until the cows come home, and a battleground attitude isn't helping anyone achieve that goal. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ZI Jony

The recent activity of this user in the «File:» space is basically increasing the edit counter without any noticeable production. Note that, not a long time ago, I was the only supporter of this person in his bid to extended permissions. My patience is running out on seeing new clueless rename attempts some day after ZI Jony was explicitly advised against doing so. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been repeatedly asked to change their behaviour, by you and other users and actually promised to do so three days ago. Today they again requested a deletion not in line with our renaming guidelines (their first request after the promise). I have blocked them for a week, hopefully grabbing their attention finally. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cvolebo

May some one ask Cvolebo to be polite and by the same occasion purge his copyvios ? Thanks for all. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Patrick Rogel: I rolled back the personal attack and asked the user to be civil.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OG_VA$

BevinKacon (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be natural

BevinKacon (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need a definitive solution.

For a long time I have seen continuous eliminations of the images that I upload. I never upload images that are not mine. However, I give up my rights to contribute to Wikipedia, but I see that different moderators eliminate them arbitrarily. You can see in my history that most of the images have been questioned. I work with the singer Soledad Pastorutti and all the images with which I contributed are mine. With these attitudes, I doubt the true freedom of Wikipedia and the control processes. All the files that I uploaded in my story are mine and over and over again they have been deleted. I request that you give me an answer about how to contribute without receiving this abuse, because I invest hours of my life writing, editing and contributing and I feel that it is not valued. I know the rules, terms and conditions, and I accept them. Please, I ask you to review the case and give me an answer. Thank you very much. Best regards. Dyego Senesi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyegos (talk • contribs) 13:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We will reply to your OTRS email shortly and work to correct this situation. Guanaco (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Catpain Barbell

They have recently been blocked because of overwriting existing files and uploading copyvios. After returning, they are continuing the same behaviour as before unfortunately. File:RadyoPilipinas2-logo.png (woman beside the logo), File:RadyoPilipinas1-logo.png (man beside the logo), File:NGC Reverse Notes and Coins.jpg (man, flower, and herbs among banknotes and coins), File:PHP 2010 New Generation Currency Banknotes.jpg (man and flag among banknotes and coins; also note the first version in which pictures of people have been forged on banknotes), File:PTVLogo2017.png (other networks beside the original one), File:JPY Banknotes.png (issuing new Japanese banknotes which do not exist in reality according to Japanese yen). 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=314029889"