Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Note

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

Marium Alberto[edit]

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

@Bedivere: I notified the user, as you are required to above.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I forgot to do so. The user provided a somewhat strange response to my message, disregarding completely the COM:OW criteria. --Bedivere (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Marium Alberto has been told to upload separatedly instead of overwriting by:
User:Yann (22 nov 2021)
User:Macucal (11 dec 2021)
User:Strakhov (28 dic 2021)
User:Macucal (5 ene 2022)
User:Bedivere (19 ene 2022)
Strakhov (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, as recently as 25 January, he has cropped other images. As pointed above by Strakhov (thanks for that) this user has been repeatedly told not to overwrite files and has continued despite everything, deliberately ignoring users. Such behavior needs to be stopped. Bedivere (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This user has caused a big mess, please see my reverts on my contributions page. They need to be stopped. I urge admins to take action. Bedivere (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is an incredibly tedious task. I got enough at some point. Here is the continuing point if anyone wants to do it. --Bedivere (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Yann, much appreciated. I have reverted all of his croppings. Just for the record, he has left an angry talk page message for me in the Spanish Wikipedia. Nothing new; just found it funny he shouted I did not respect others' work, yet he was the one replacing original works with his cropped versions, still giving illegitimate reasons to justify such changes [1]. --Bedivere (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Clearly NOTHERE, but a CU block would be better. Could you create a CU request? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jawico666. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, While looking for diffs to strnghten the CU case I ran across this one [2] which I think suggests this may be Jawico666, whom you previously blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
garbage
I do admit, they are stupid but me? I'm smarter than them, those people are trying to get me. I avoid them, I have no involvement with them but, if I did it would be funnier. ER6876976778 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But, I want to keep my reputation they have nothing to lose, I do I have things to lose. ER6876976778 (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could've killed them for fun but again, I have things to lose, not to gain. ER6876976778 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that's a threat but okay? Jonathon Josh Jane (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually, I'm funnier than you, you are pretty not funny because like I practiced making people laugh, you didn't. Jonathon Josh Jane (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. All the sockpuppet farm is blocked per checkuser investigation. Taivo (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jissmon76[edit]

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

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

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

User:Gilas Pilipinas GT500[edit]

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

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

User:Geagea[edit]

User Geagea is an admin and used (abused?) the file mover right to rename almost 24,000+ files in 24 hours and the day after about 2,500, only to place a left bracket " ( " on files. They say: the right side must be done another time (???), and it is their own files, crit. 1, while crit. 4 is used. Some sort of uploading problem. That doesn't matter, renaming is not a playing tool. See the discussion here: [3] and here on Village pump. That it's not possible to revoke the rename rights for an admin, I doubt. It's possible to block a single page for a user without the talk page, there is a lot possible. I don't want to get User:Geagea be desysoped (It's possibly a very good sysop), but he must be stopped doing this, i.m.o. - In no way is a rename by adding only brackets (and here only the left ones) for 25k+ files justified in any way. Such harmonization is a waste of resources. (partly copied). This an example (one of the 25k+): [4]. Thanks and Greetings, Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

user:Зайцев Руслан Викторович: PoV pushing[edit]

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

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

User:Aaalllvvviii[edit]

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

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

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

Useless splits in categories about Slavic paganism[edit]

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

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

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

References[edit]

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

User:Asrtyon[edit]

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

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

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

User:GabrielDorneles[edit]

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

✓ Done Sigh. Already two blocks without any acknowledgement about the issue, so indef. this time. This is a pity, as files uploaded are useful, but there are already 1,000+ files to correct. Yann (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I declined unblock request. Taivo (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is a case where the possibility of blocking uploading only would be useful. Yann (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tried with my alt, a block in File namespace will not allow the user to upload. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A blocking uploading only would be good, because would only him to clean his mess. Because we are short on volunteers and who will review and fix over 1000? The point is that they don't seem to completely understand what they're done wrong. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 14:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A blocking of File namesapce only wouldn't work, as we want him to be able to edit the File namespace. Yann (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team was working on action partial blocks (see phab:T6995, phab:T242541, phab:T280531) but it looks like it's been stalled since May 2021. We could reimplement the same thing with a user group (a la phab:T227618) but it's probably not worth doing if the partial blocks feature will be finished any time soon. Unfortunately AHT got pulled away to work on the Board election, then IP masking, so I don't know when we'll ever see it. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=625925766"