Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
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
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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	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	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}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~12
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~6
• No license since 21 June 2024: ~7
• No source since 21 June 2024: ~41
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-06: ~54

Other:

• Duplicates: ~0
• Advertisements/spam: ~2
• Personal photos/selfies: ~3
• Other speedy deletions: ~9
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~2
• Requests for unblock: ~3
• Undeletion requests: ~4

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~5
• Interface admin: ~18
• Technical: ~1
• Template protection: ~22
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

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

User:Jmurphy042000

One of this user's first edits was to add a German nationalist slogan to the user talk page with no context [1]. I have asked them for clarification on their Talk page and have received no response. I cannot assume good faith – this user should be immediately blocked. If they ever choose to explain themselves, they can do so in an unblock request. Toadspike (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done This request is somewhat ridiculous, why should they be blocked for something they added in 2020 if they have made constructive contributions afterwards. Also you failed to notify the user which I have done for you. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention that the national anthem of Germany includes at its very beginning the phrase "Deutschland über alles". It is not a block-worthy offence, for sure. Bedivere (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for not notifying Jmurphy and thank you for doing that. This sort of behavior cannot be tolerated no matter what their other contributions have been. Knowing, unqualified use of that phrase clearly serves to provoke and offend. Commons as a project at least deserves an explanation, and if a block forces an explanation, then I support a block.

@Bedivere, saying that this phrase is “at the beginning of the German national anthem” is stretching the truth. Perhaps you are correct, under some weird technical interpretation of the law, but for all practical matters (and legal protections) the German national anthem now consists only of the third stanza, because the first stanza is strongly associated with Nazism and toxic German nationalism. I am not the only person to be offended by the use of the first stanza; use of the phrase in question alone, with no context or explanation, is far worse. Toadspike (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You might be right about the phrase, but what difference does it make almost four years after it was made in a somewhat obscure early edit of that user? Had it been a pattern of their editing, they'd have been for sure warned/blocked but this seems a one-off, and one that happened a long time ago. Bedivere (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If consensus is that users may post offensive statements so long as they're not caught for several years, then fine, this report can be closed. Toadspike (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The point is that the report is stale. And while the use of the phrase is questionable, it is not clearly, to me at least, intended maliciously. Despite that, I will give this user a warning.

As a result, this request is  Not done Bedivere (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

StarkWinter

• StarkWinter (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user was blocked at the end of may for two weeks for persistently uploading copyvios and today they decided to once again re-upload all the same files. Günther Frager (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

   Done blocked by EugeneZelensko Bedivere (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Georgia (country) photographs taken on 2024-05-04 and others

I've got a request for template editors: could someone fix Template:Georgia photographs taken on navbox, please. Someone tried to disambiguate between Geogria (US state) and Georgia (country), but something went wrong, I think. Thanks in advance Wieralee (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

At the moment, this is a category that redirect to itself, which is obviously wrong, but it is not obvious what is desired. - Jmabel ! talk 17:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I left a note about it at Template_talk:Country_photographs_taken_on#Broken_at_Georgia and on COM:AN. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

JorgeVBis

• JorgeVBis (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user uploaded several copyvios, and I asked him to submit a VRT ticket, but instead he created a Flickr account to upload the image. I caught that, and now I discovered that he did the same a couple of months later. Günther Frager (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Orijentolog/Massive rollbacks

Since this morning the user Orijentolog is carrying out massive reversions of edits that I made more than a week ago and that until now had not been a problem for him. The editions are related to architecture categories, in which there were templates that in my opinion are excessive because the internal sub-categories that already exist fulfill their functions (some examples: 1, 2, 3). Beyond threatens to report me and demanding me not to oppose his reversals ("refrain from removing proper templates"), he has been unable to give me a clear explanation of the reason for this procedure and is reverting me even in categories in which he had previously not even intervened. In fact, it has reverted mostly without giving a single reason in the edit summaries (4, 5), although most recently he does it accusing me of vandalism (6, 7, 8, 9) after initially opposing their massive reversals. CFA1877 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, you're doing a huge damage to this project by removing proper top templates. There is nothing which can justify this edits ([2][3][4]), yet you call my reverting to previous (proper) condition as "disruptive". No one in the past two decades has come up with the idea to remove it, except you.

Second, the claim that "templates are excessive because the internal sub-categories that already exist fulfill their functions" is nonsensical. Categories do not make templates redundant. According to your logic, virtually all top templates related to countries are "unnecessarily" because there are categories. I can't believe that you came up with the idea that thousands of contributors and hundreds of thousands of categories with such templates are "wrong", and you are the only one right.

Third, I personally made Template:Western architectural styles and inserted it in thousands of relevant categories. Everyone else was happy to use it, including some of the most active users to the categorization of architecture (AnRo0002, Triplec85, etc.), and suddenly you came and started to massively remove it all around with claims it's "unnecessarily". I restored it all around, along with general templates (like Template:Countries of Asia) which you also removed (point 1), and you started to remove it once again. That's rude.

If you have an issue with top templates in general, open a complain & suggest a massive removal from millions of categories. But don't destroy the work of other contributors based on the views that only you have. --Orijentolog (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. FYI, after I opened the Template:Western architectural styles, I edited almost everything related to styles in major European countries. The template is not at the top for aesthetics, but it helps a lot for architectural chronology. It took me tens of thousands of edits and months for all that. Then you suddenly came a week ago and spent a few minutes removing that template from tens of categories of few selective countries, with flawed arguments, and now you are surprised that someone reverted you. --Orijentolog (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow, what a miracle. A little unpleasant of you to refuse to give me clear explanations. It seems that after a notification here you have regained the ability to speak. Possibly this issue would have been avoided if you didn't have those rude ways. But this explanation doesn't justify massive reversals on me, in cases that don't seem to affect you.

I repeat, you have reversed many more things than you claim here. For example, there are users who add templates "en masse", even for a single element (no relation with other elements/categories). That's nonsense. I intervened in some of such cases. Why do you also burst at me in these cases?

And finally. Since you attack me without limits, I remind you that your discussion is full of complaints and protests from other users about your view on this topic. It doesn't seem like everything is as pretty and colorful as you describe. In this case, it is clear that if your opinion prevails it is because of the force, given that you preferred to revert to normal dialogue with me. This is my last intervention, I do not want to contribute to prolonging the issue. CFA1877 (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@CFA1877: I looked at several of Orijentolog's edits you referenced in your comments above. Their edits you are complaining about are obviously correct; I can see why they did not feel a need to write an explanatory edit summary, though I would have done so myself. These navigation templates exist for a reason. If you object to the navigation template, nominate it for deletion (and you will discover that you are pretty much alone in thinking this). Otherwise, please do not remove navigation templates from categories. It is possible that you were not handled as gently as you might have been in this, but your edits were not easily distinguished from vandalism. - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Unreasonable removal of CC-Zero City vector maps

Hello. I published vector maps of cities created by me personally, the user SounderBruce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SounderBruce deleted them under a fictitious pretext. He wrote me a notice (copy at the end)

• He didn’t like my nickname. Reason for removal - "Maps added by self-promotional account"

However: My username VECTORMAPPER does not represent any brand, company or public organization. Also, this name does not represent any service, product, website, etc. This is my VERY old nickname, due to the fact that I have been working in the field of vector cartography for a very long time (more than 25 years). And of course, many people in many countries know me by this nickname - it simply reflects my profession.

I am providing the Wikipedia community with free access to some of my vector maps without any restrictions on use.

I really hope that my work on the Wiki will be useful to many people.

---

Also. My vector files provide the ability to edit, embed in any designs of any scale, in any projects that involve subsequent printing, use in media, and others. Maps, which are usually presented in info box on the Wiki Pages, may be visually informative at the “just look” level - but they are completely impossible to use in any way. The city maps that I published provide users with the ability to easily edit maps in any vector editor and use maps in any media and printing projects, including cinema, television, interactive maps for Internet projects, and games. All maps I publish are fully CC-0 licensed and therefore can be used in any way. I am confident that the city maps I provide are necessary and useful to users.

---

Message from SounderBruce:<br? Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Vectormapper", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, service, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually (not your role), such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87", but not "SEO Manager at XYZ Company". Thank you. SounderBruce 07:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

---

List of the removed maps: 
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  +2,556‎  N User talk:Vectormapper ‎ Warning: Username and conflict of interest. thank Tag: Twinkle
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −72‎  m Tulsa, Oklahoma ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −77‎  m São Paulo ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −74‎  m Zürich ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −72‎  m Shanghai ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −71‎  m Toronto ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −114‎  m San Francisco ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −104‎  m Seattle ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  +22‎  m Sydney ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −72‎  m Tampere ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −66‎  m Tokyo ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −147‎  m Warsaw ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −78‎  m San Juan, Puerto Rico ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −86‎  m Salt Lake City ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −153‎  m Wellington ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −84‎  m Sacramento, California ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −114‎  m Oakland, California ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −68‎  m Turku ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −88‎  m Sioux Falls, South Dakota ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −138‎  m Bellevue, Washington ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −102‎  m Yokohama ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −70‎  m Salem, Oregon ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −82‎  m St. Gallen ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −78‎  m Tauranga ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −94‎  m Winterthur ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback
07:28, 23 June 2024 diff hist  −194‎  m Tampa Bay ‎ Maps added by self-promotional account current thank Tag: Rollback 

Vectormapper (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The only deleted file from Vectormapper that I can see is File:Zurich Switzerland street map.jpg (deleted 18 June 2024), so I cannot make head or tail of this. Perhaps it is about some project other than Wikimedia Commons? @SounderBruce: can you shed any light on this? - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The logs look like English Wikipedia to me since Twinkle is included as a tag (which is a gadget I use there) and the references to "self-promotional account". Abzeronow (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Above you can see a list of my city maps vandalized from the Wiki pages (under a far-fetched pretext) Vectormapper (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

And one more thing about the username. "Vectormapper" is exactly the same legitimate username as, for example, "cook" or "fitter" or "doctor" or "archaeologist" - it accurately reflects the user's identification. The idea that the name "Hannibal_Lecter_666" is more acceptable than, for example, "Philatelist" seems ridiculous to me. Vectormapper (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

We cannot resolve English Wikipedia matters on Wikimedia Commons as Commons is a different project with different policies to enwiki. For the record, I agree with you on the username (which does not violate Commons policy). Abzeronow (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, but where can I challenge the fact that my materials were removed from the pages of the English Wiki? Vectormapper (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Try en:User talk:SounderBruce, otherwise take a look at en:Wikipedia:Village pump. Bidgee (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Verctormapper: I would also strongly suggest that you not refer to this as "vandalism", which means doing wilful damage. Obviously you and Bruce are having a disagreement, and quite possibly even one in which you are correct, but that does not make him a "vandal", and if you continue to throw around accusations like that your account is likely to be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 21:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Any deletion of materials that do not contradict civil laws and Wikipedia rules is essentially vandalism.

If a user simply had questions about my publications or me personally, I, as you can see, am ready to explain and defend my point of view.

Instead, the user simply deleted my maps for made-up reasons.

If I, for example, deleted your own materials from the Wiki because ??? (I don’t like your nickname, or it seems to me that you are advertising yourself, or because of my or your nationality) ??? -

You yourself would admit that this is vandalism.

I could still understand if the articles included AT LEAST SOME maps of cities. But there were NONE of them. Don't you find it strange that in an article about a city there is no map file of this city? Vectormapper (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

User:VectorMapper User:Vectormapper - I don't know what the detailed definition of vandalism is on Commons. The guideline on Vandalism is not informative on that point. However, if the definition is similar to what is used in the en:English Wikipedia for Vandalism, then you, VectorMapper, are making inappropriate allegations. This is a good-faith content dispute, and using the label of "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute is a bad idea. In the English Wikipedia, it is considered a personal attack and is blockable. So don't yell Vandalism unless you have a reading of a vandalism policy or guideline that confirms what you are saying. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Not to say you were advertising on Wikipedia since I really have no clue or care to find out, but the text on your user space is clearly promotional. The same goes for the watermark in your uploads with the url of your website and your inclusion of it in the file description. So if it were me I probably would have done the same thing. Since although none of those alone are an indicator of anything, I think combined they clearly point to you using this as a way to upsell or advertise yourself. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not fair. Everyone has the right to write about their achievements - if they exist, of course. The profile simply states what it really is - a brief description of professional qualifications. If I, for example, bred fish and wrote articles about it, my profile would indicate that my fish are the most beautiful. And a physicist would probably have an academic degree and significant publications. And in your profile, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Adamant1 your interests are indicated in great detail. Isn't this an obvious advertisement? Vectormapper (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Your interests are indicated in great detail. Isn't this an obvious advertisement? No because I'm not patting myself on the back about my personal work in a promotional way or trying to upsell anyone on visiting a website where I sell images of postcards like your doing. Your profile literally says "WEB: vectormap.net Vector Maps of the Cities, States and Countries: High Detailed Editable Printable Street / Road Maps in Adobe Illustrator, PDF, CDR, DWG, DXF." Where exactly am I doing that? Sorry, but that's clearly advertising and in no way is it at all comparable to me linking to a galleries of images I've uploaded on my profile. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Planet Work Force Terraforming

• Planet Work Force Terraforming (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Blocked a couple of times last year for uploading and writing out-of-scope material about their personal theories on how we can terraform the oceans and the apparently hollow interior of the planet Earth. After a nine month break from Commons they have resumed adding that kind of content today. Belbury (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done indeffed. They have not listened to warnings nor previous blocked. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 19:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

TamikaWest

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

This person has uploaded many pictures of personalities (171 currently), all without EXIF data, selfies by Pilar Scratch, and pictures of Pilar Scratch which are not selfies. So something is not right (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Celebrity wardrobe stylist Pilar Scratch and friend wardrobe stylist Denise Styless attend the Krab Queens Grand Opening in Harlem.jpg). Many pictures need checking. Yann (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Roermondernaar

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

Uploads copyvio (File:SC Leeuwen logo.png) after having been warned for it yesterday. Jonteemil (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, file deleted. Yann (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I deleted some complex logos speedily and created one DR. Taivo (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Everhardy

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

Blatantly not here to do anything constructive Dronebogus (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• User page deleted (it was a bunch of exhibitionist pictures of himself). Someone else can decide what to do further. - Jmabel ! talk 18:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Everything is deleted. User warned. Yann (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Laurel Lodged

Khankendi is a city in Azerbaijan and since 2023 it is under Azerbaijani control. Its previous name was Stepanakert but in 1991 it was renamed and today its official and since 2023 de facto name is Khankendi. Even in recent reliable sources this city is mentioned first of all as "Khankendi" but "Stepanakert" is mentioned only as a name "known to Armenians" or "known in Armenia"[5][6]. Even the recent report of The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights uses the name of Khankendi throughout the report, only once in the beginning mentioning that the city is "referred to as Stepanakert by Karabakh Armenians"[7]. For that reason all categories containing the name of this city in their names should be with "Khankendi". And categories with "Stepanakert" should be redirected to the categories with "Khankendi". But user Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) continues edit warring reverting the categories with "Stepanakert" back misleading the readers of Commons. I asked this user on his talk page to not revert "Stepanakert" back and explained why the categories should be with "Khankendi"[8], but he ignored my message and continues mass edit warring reverting the wrong and not actual name of the city back and removing the redirects to "Khankendi"[9][10][11][12][13]. So, please stop this user from posting false information into Commons and help to revert his edits on these categories. Interfase (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

We should now be using the Azeri name, with the Armenian name as a redirect. It's possible that there are certain historical categories where the Armenian name is correct, especially if it is part of a longer proper noun phrase. - Jmabel ! talk 20:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

For example, we have redirect from "Swaziland" to "Eswatini"[14] which is relatively new renaming (in 2018), but Stepanakert was renamed to Khankendi in 1991 and the old name ceased to exist de facto in place in 2023. We should have the same redirect here as well: from "Stepanakert" to "Khankendi", not the other way around. There is no any "Stepanakert" in Azerbaijan today. The current situation is simply absurd. Interfase (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is just my personal take of course, but I'm hesitant to say we should adopt a new name for somewhere the second it's changed. Depending on the circumstances categories aren't supposed to be 100% accurate depictions of the current facts on the ground to begin with and lots of times they aren't (or can't be) anyway. That's fine. The main thing is that people are able to find and organize media related to the topic. In this case maybe locals know the name has changed, but it takes time for the rest of the world to catch up and this isn't a project just for locals or people who are overly obsessive about the latest trends in geopolitics or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

More than 30 years passed since the city was renamed to "Khankendi" and today this name is widely used in the world press nad other sources. The rest of the world already catched up the name "Khankendi". Just 2 years passed when "Swaziland" was renamed to "Eswatini". What is a problem here? We have more that enogh sources showing that "Khankendi" is widely used in the world. Interfase (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Interfase: See Prosfilaes' comment below this one. Your claim that The rest of the world already catched up the name "Khankendi" is clearly false. Regardless, there's no point in changing it if the vast majority of other projects are still using the original name. Again, the point in a category is to find and organize files. That's it. Not be a 100% accurate representation of the current facts on the ground, whatever those facts are in this case. Maybe take it up on Wikipedia's end though and then we can update it once they do. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia (and probably the majority of Wikipedias) hasn't changed the name yet. Furthermore, the English Wikipedia says there's not much of a Khankendi in Azerbaijan, either; the entire population appears to have fled on the approach of the Azerbaijan military. When you say "Stepanakert was renamed to Khankendi in 1991", that's omitting who gave it that name; the Azerbaijan government may have made that change, but the people of Stepanakert never accepted it. This is complex; instead of renaming anything, I'd almost recognize it as a new city on the same location and completely separate categories depending on time period. It's like the difference between Category:Königsberg and Category:Kaliningrad.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

So, do you think that here we should use the same approcah? Keep both categories with "Khankendi" and "Stepanakert" and put files related to the period since 1923 to 2023 into "Stepanakert" and the files related to the period till 1923 and since 2023 into "Khankendi"? Interfase (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

How many images have been uploaded since 2023 compared to before that? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Almost 100. Interfase (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

But I am not agree to have two different categories for the same city because almost all of the images related to the city were taken at the period when the city was officialy called "Khankendi". Interfase (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, I could really go either way with it myself then. Although it's probably better not to create two different categories anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as an administrator, this does not appear to be a user behavioral issue. If the category was at a longstanding place, and you are seeking to change it against opposition, please utilize the categories for discussion method in order to attempt to gain a consensus. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

But user did not bring any arguments for his reverts. It seems that he did reverts for the reverts without any explanation on his talk page after my message. Interfase (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I opened the discussion here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:Stepanakert (thanks for navigation) and proposed to move the categories carrying the "Stepanakert". Interfase (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• What was this even about? My bad behaviour? Bad categorisation? Annoyance that the Azerbaijani victory over Arksakh is not getting proper recognition? I refrained from comment here and on the categories because I have experience of the complainant: dialog is useless as his sole goal is to advance a political agenda. He's not that subtle about it. I'll continue the "discussion" in the above talk page. Thanks for your attention. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Iwatchonlinex

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

Creating nonsense DR after I warned this account not to advertise on Commons: Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Groom Talks in His Sleep (1935) by Heinosuke Gosho.webm. Yann (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Please help removing category from a User page

Hello, I am currently working as committee for Indonesian Data Visualization Competition, which one of the tasks is writing article at participants' user page in Wikidata and uploading their work to Wikimedia Commons.

One of the participant (@Anazzahro129) misread the instruction and wrote the article in their Commons' user page instead. The problem is when they added the competition category and WikiProject Indonesia category to their user page and this messed up the category page for the competition.

When I tried to remove the category myself, my action detected and blocked by Abuse Filter since I tried to edit other user's page. I have tried to contact the user themself via email which they used for registration to no avail. Can the admin helped me remove the competition category, and also the WikiProject Indonesia's category ? Thank you. Athayahisyam (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Athayahisyam:  Done. That did not need an administrator. Just an autopatrolled user. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the category. Athayahisyam (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Редактор СВА

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

Deletes copyvio templates from files they upload, removes user talk page messages about their copyright violations and reuploads the same file again (File:KITH Персонаж.jpg) after it was deleted for being a copyvio (File:Kith персонаж.jpg). - Sebbog13 (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done 3 day blocked. They removed the warning so clearly they read it (or at least knew it existed). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

通報しますた

通報しますた (talk · contribs) made an edit on User talk:Ktojsecgiioe, which is obvious Legal threat. Lemonaka (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Already globally locked. Yann (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I did not see global lock, so I blocked the user locally indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

IP address users on Category:Reproducing piano recording

• 109.183.170.89 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• 31.205.117.254 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• 190.105.60.53 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• 86.45.105.48 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• 78.19.56.34 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• 87.101.112.12 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• 181.115.64.185 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

 Since June 24, 2024 on the Category:Reproducing piano recording, these IP address users have been repeatedly posting SPAM link to the abandoned comment-section of the unrelated external site, and also leaving the meaningless threatening message on each edit summary field (see History page).
 In my eyes, these IP address users may be the same person as an already blocked user User:GraceMaryGrace and her IP address set through the proxy/VPN, because she have been caused same trouble on Wikimedia Commons Category:Vorsetzer and Wikidata's my Talk page since February 2024, as a habitual stalker. --Clusternote (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done, protected page, FYI this LTA is probably GRP. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Георгий Долгопский

Георгий Долгопский (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Uploading dozens of derivatives, violating COM:FOP Russia, every year since 2013, despite a good deal of warnings and blocks. Quick1984 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

RfA standards?

What, if any, standards are in place for RfA here on Commons? Are admin hopefuls tested at all about their understanding of the five pillars or other rules and policies they will be enforcing? After a recent experience, I am genuinely concerned about an admin's future use of the tools after they have shown they do not fully understand the assorted policies they are supposed to be enforcing. I have asked two involved admins for mediation on my talk page, which appears to have gone unanswered, so I am asking for help here. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like there are any outside of the intuitions of whomever votes in the RfA at the time. Which is unfortunate but also understandable. It does seem to present a problem though where admins are usually above reproach and unsactionable for their actions once they are given the previlage. See my recent ANU complaint about VIGNERON as an example. The only thing you can usually do is either open an ANU complaint which risks blow back and bandwagoning by other admins (again, see my ANU complaint above for an example) or file a full request for rights removel. The last one has almost zero chance of going anywhere though. So at the end of the day all you can really do is take the L and deal with being a tool of someone elses power trip. Or just be an ever increasing passive agressive asshole until you get blocked because no one on here really actually gives a shit about civility and just plays favorites. That's my go to strategy for open source, "community" based projects like this one. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I do not agree that admins are some kind of superior class of users. It should not be. What Adolphus79 has forgotten to mention, though, is that this seemingly innocent thread they've started has a name within. I have given all kinds of explanations regarding their blocking and they do not accept them. Fair enough. I don't get though why they are restoring obvious personal attacks by some IP users on their talk page, even reverting me. I'll take Jameslwoodward's advice to keep away from this user, so (despite I have already said at least three times) this will be my last comment on them. Making a personal vendetta-stic campagin even after I apologized for my mistake is not fun. Bedivere (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bedivere: were the attacks on them (in which case I think it is their prerogative to decide they would rather keep them visible) or on others (in which case what you are describing would certainly be a problem, tantamount to making the attack themself)? - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to these "non-vandalism IP edits for context" (Adolphus' words) they restored, which included: "what a pathetic use of adimnship". Bedivere (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Once again, Bedivere's statement is not quite accurate, and they are once again showing that they do not understand the policies involved. The "personal attack" they are referring to is the IP's comment "what a pathetic use of adinmship, as an unrelated user, you should've kept quiet", clearly not a personal attack. Also, I did not restore that comment after Bedivere removed it (from my talk page, mind you), I only restored the later edit from the IP after being blocked as a sockpuppet, saying they are not me, and asking Bedivere to do a checkuser. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bedivere: That's certainly the attitude a lot of them have and they constantly back each other in disputes no matter who's actually right. I've been pretty active on here for a long time now and can't think of a single instance where an administrator was either blocked, otherwise sanctioned, or threated with a sanction for their behavior. Not to say it's never happened but it's certainly extremely rare and the whole thing has a chilling effect that needs to be accounted for here.

Most of their actions are done in far flung areas where users aren't going to report them because of fear of retaliation or just because it has no chance of going anywhere if they do. That was certainly my experience when Yann unfairly blocked a couple of years ago as part of a personal dispute. Realistically who's going to report an administrator for their actions after an unfair block, threat of one on their talk page, or other bullying behavior by an admin in an obscure area that has a low turnout to begin with? It's just obfuscation all the way down anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but then Bedivere decided to try it with an 18-year veteran of enwiki who clearly knows the rules and policies better than they do. Administrators are held accountable for their actions on enwiki, and there is Oversight and Arbitration. I expect the administrators here to be held to at least some standard, not just swinging that hammer wildly making decisions based purely on their own opinion or rules. I worry how many others Bedivere has done this to in the last 4 months since becoming an admin, that didn't know the policies well enough to stand up and say "wait a minute!". I worry about future new users this admin might come in contact if they are allowed to continue like this unchecked. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the technicalities of this particular case since you haven't provided any background information, but I've generally found Bedivere to pretty fair and knowledgeable in the short time they have been an admin. Plus they are still getting use to the role. So there's inevitably going to be some mistakes until their fully acquainted with it. I think it's reasonable to assume good faith and give them the benefit of the doubt here. Especially considering the lack of evidence. I do think there's a larger issue with admin behavior in general though that should be dealt with, but this probably isn't the right forum for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I tried to assume good faith, when I was finally unblocked, I made a very clear and precise request on my talk page, you can then see that Bedivere refused to respond with any discussion on policy, only saying "the whole point for the block still stands". Every new comment after that, they changed the reason for the block, personal attacks, "attempting to start an edit war" (with one edit), incivility, copyvio, each disproven by the policy itself. Never once did Bedivere want to discuss policy, never once did they quote any policy as a reason for the block. They even blocked me from my talk page without discussion or warning, so I couldn't try to discuss this with them or post an unblock request (I couldn't even email them, had to email another admin for help). My final edit before coming here summarizes it quite well, "That means.... when you blocked me... all you really had me for was one single edit of openly admitted vandalism, uploading this free piece of artwork over the other image (which you deleted instead of reverting the change)... one single use of the word "bullshit" on AN (which you also revdel'd for some reason instead of just reverting)... and me calling your actions "bullshit" on my talk page (for which my talk page rights were removed)? I wanna talk to your manager... right now...". - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

There's two things here that I think you need to reflect on. 1. You committed vandalism of your own admittance. 2. You swore at an admin multiple times. Full stop that's a blocker offense no matter what other circumstances exist at the time. You don't go into a court room and curse out the judge. And I say that as someone who has an issue in that area myself. I'm constantly having to edit swearing out of my comments. Right or wrong you lose any ability to make an argument for your position after that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I was about to say pretty much what Adamant1 just said. Going by your own description here, if someone came to COM:AN/U, described what you just described, and I saw that it was accurate, then a 3-day block is about what I would have done, too. - Jmabel ! talk 02:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

In the end, I believe your original response is most accurate, and at least the business I originally came for has been handled. Thank you Commons, it has been an experience that I have learned a lot from and will take with me to share with others... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1 I have made my best efforts at doing the right thing. I have made mistakes, for sure. I have apologized. I tried my best at explaining Adolphus what was wrong with their edits and what led to their original three-day block. I don't really know what do they really want. I just really want to move on and would expect them to move on too. Bedivere (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Rare behavior

Hi. I've noticed this edition of Lahsim Niasoh where he changes the author of the file. I've checked his contribs and I've seen the same behavior indicates as "Changed claim: creator (P170): some value". When I've checked the edits it seems he's the uploader, but the author before was another user O.o I'm not sure what is going on here. I've never seen anything like this. If someone can please help me I'll be glad. At this point I'll withdraw the permission untill some light come to this issue. Thanks. Ganímedes (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Yubrajhn redirects to UserːLahsim Niasoh - so it looks like he is changing authorship manually Gbawden (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for my behavior, My username has been changed so I am changing my uploads authorship manually. All files is uploaded by me. Please pardon me. Lahsim Niasoh (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Also I have sent severals permission email for my uploads before my username has been changed (https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lahsim_Niasoh&diff=prev&oldid=889314587). So I just manually renamed my new username to my files authorship (those files were also captured by myself). Before my username was Yubrajhn and new username is Lahsim Niasoh. So please review those files, I didn't give authorship to another person two username is mine and I am the author + those files were uploaded by myself. Again I am very sorry for my behavior. Please take a step so that my username manually changes don't affect to get the files copyright Permission. Thank you so much. My English is weak so please pardon me again. @Ganímedes @Gbawden Lahsim Niasoh (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: Doesn't seem any problematic edit given a valid account rename: Special:Diff/889314587. Regards, _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 16:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 19:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Enhancing999

User is continuing editwarring in the Category:Zeichen 244, StVO 1992. --A.Savin 13:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

User:A.Savin

User is redoing an edit that was reverted at Category:Zeichen 244, StVO 1992, despite having been provided an explanation and without opening a discussion on the topic. Seems rather inappropriate for an administrator. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

What should it be, kind of a Tit for tat? Childish --A.Savin 13:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Why did both of you open this report here without starting a discussion on category talk page or user talk page or event the village pump? These are the places to resolve content disputes not the admin board. GPSLeo (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The categorization matter is currently resolved. We are now reviewing the conduct of A.Savin in the matter (first the revert, then the report here, further the "childish" qualification). Enhancing999 (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

How is the categorization matter resolved? Do you have a special "final say" right, or why aren't you willing to discuss? --A.Savin 13:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of AN/U isn't to discuss categorization, but to evaluate your conduct. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we do not discuss the content dispute here. This also means that your statement "categorization matter is currently resolved" does not belong here. So please start a discussion on the question on the pages were it belongs. If you discuss in an appropriate way and accept the conclusion there is nothing to do here. GPSLeo (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we block A.Savin indefinitely until he withdraws the above qualification and presents an acceptable excuse for their conduct. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Please stop demanding totally inappropriate actions because of a minor content dispute. The report here without a prior discussion apart from the undo comments is not best practice but never a reason for a block. GPSLeo (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Besides that A.Savin's report here violates the instructions above, do you consider the comment by the user here ( 13:13, 28 June 2024) acceptable? Enhancing999 (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

BTW, my report has nothing to do with a content dispute, it's a matter of user conduct by the administrator. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I recently found the noticeboard behavior by Enhancing999 towards me equally unconstructive. They were literally the only user pushing a particular POV, but they used pretty much the same language as here: "issues resolved" (in their opinion, in the opinion of many other users not resolved); "we are discussing whether Ymblanter should remain and administrator" (instead of "I am discussing"), and so on. Seems to be a recurring issue. Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Both of you were involved in admin conduct I consider inappropriate about that user. Interestingly, nobody could name a categorization question we needed to discuss at User_talk:Jeanhousen#Cimetières_et_patrimoine_classé. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I am afraid if you still do not understand what the problem was (despite being told many times) you are not likely to understand this. Then what you consider inappropriate is irrelevant, since you do not have sufficient understanding of our policies. This is also very clear from this thread. Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You were pressing a user for answers to questions you consider open, but don't bother naming nor did you explain what report lead you press that user. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, perfect counduct, I fully agree. Continuing editwarring with the explanation as much as "there is no consensus for your edit", and then demanding indefblock of a user who doesn't happen to agree with you. --A.Savin 14:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose Minor content dispute, no action needed against Alex. --SHB2000 (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose I had a similar issue with A.Savin a while ago. That said, both of their ways of handling this are clearly not great. So either both should be sanctioned or neither one should be, and I doubt either one would accept a sanction just to get back at the other. Especially considering how menial this whole thing was to begin with. So I don't really see what else needs to or should be done here. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• If you're editwarring and get reported at this noticeboard, best way to avoid sanction is... to report the one who reported you! The Enhancing999 thread just above is still empty. Editwarring and obvious misuse of COM:ANU is apparently allowed, if your name is Enhancing999. Wow, just wow --A.Savin 06:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Both of you seemed to have jumped the gun on the ANU complaints. Even if yours was technically filed first. So maybe don't throw stones in glass houses. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

How is this helpful in any way? If persistent editwarring is not to report at COM:ANU, then what else is to do about it? Or are you just trying to showcase your knowledge of some German idioms? --A.Savin 08:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Susudela

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

User keeps edit warring unnecessary categories into their files. Dronebogus (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Standing_sexual_intercourse.webm&diff=prev&oldid=889573405 looks like a totally inappropriate edit. More specifically, it looks not only like edit-warring but like an effort by User:Susudela to "promote" their (sexually explicit) content by getting it into as many categories as possible. I've posted to their page asking them to come to this discussion but whether they do or not: if this conduct continues, they should be blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 19:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

User:LustfulWyvern

Inappropriate username; only uploads are dick pics Dronebogus (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done for the latter. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)